.0' 



0 >- ^ ^, 



0 N 0 " \"V 



\> " ' 0 , -> 



,0 



0' 'o^ '* 

• , ^ • « , 



.0^ 



,0 



^0' 



^ ^> '.;k^ 



THE 



BELIEVER'S DEFENCE, 



OB, THE DOCTRIAE OF 
THE TRINITY OF GOD 

AND ATONEMENT OF CHRIST 

DEFENDED AGAINST UNITARIANISM. 
COMPILED FROl TARIOUS AUTHORS. 

BY ALBERT McWRIGHT, 



Minister of the Methodist Episcopal Church. 



"■'There are three that bear record in Heaven, the Father, the Word, 
and the Holy Ghost : and these three are one/"" — 1 John v, 7. 



PUBLISHED BY THE AUTHOR 
C. Scott, Printer. 

1841. 






Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1841, 
By Albert McWright, 
In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of Ohio. 



rii 



INTRODUCTION. 



The compiler of the following pages probably would never 
have stepped out of his beloved obscurity for the purpose of de- 
fending one of the most impoitant doctrines in Christian theolo- 
gy, had not a train of circumstances compelled him to enter the 
field of controversy, or abandon what he deemed to be funda- 
mental truth in our holy religion, to the reckless assaults of its 
enemies, who, ha^g grown bold tlirough neglect, challenged 
him to public combat under circumstances which left him but one 
alternative, either to give up the truth as indefensible, or " con- 
tend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints." Under 
these circumstances, the design of publishing the present work 
WELS conceived. 

The compiler makes no pretensions to originality. Various 
authors have been consulted, and in m-ost cases the language of 
other writers has been adopted. Alterations having been made 
only when it was thought such alterations would increase the 
force or clearness of the argument. 

The authors tliat have been consulted are Wesley, Fletcher, 
Clark, Abbadie, Drew, Hare, Luc key, Lee, and various others. 
The most copious extracts, however, have been made from the 
•v\Titings of the Rev. Richard Watson, whose works are worthy 
the attention of all who are seeking after the t'uth as it is in 
Jesus. 

It is well known that Unitarians, in consequence of the diver- 
sity of opinions existing among them on subjects of minor im- 
portance, are divided into various sects, among whom are to be 
found a class of people calling themselves Christians, but com- 
monly known by the name of New-Lights. Against tliese the 
following work is more particularly directed, but not to the exclu- 
sion of the rest, the author having endeavored so to manage the 
argument tha^ all classes of Unitarians are opposed by the same 
proofs. 



IV 



INTRODUCTION. 



Some may suppose that enough has been written on this sub- 
ject, and that there is no call for a work of this description at the 
present time. This has been considered by the author, and after 
a due examination of the principal works on this important sub- 
ject, he has come to the conclusion to add one more to tlie number, 
for which he offers the following reasons : 

1. " The works which have already been published have not yet 
fully put a stop to the errors against which they have been direct- 
ed, nor do they appear likely to accomplish this object, very sea- 
sonably, without additional aid. While others have commenced 
the assault and battered down some of the bulwarks of error, the 
writer of these pages wishes to add his humble efforts, hoping that 
others will follow his example, until her strongest holds shall be 
demolished, and the heresy shall be known only in the history of 
the past" 

2. Unitarianism " has so shifted its ground and changed its com- 
plexion, that many of the works which, at the time they were wit- 
ten, were directed against it with a deadly aim, are now left to 
spend their sti'ength in the air, the enemy having fled and erected 
his battery on other ground, from whence he renews his incendia- 
ry warfare, and talks as much of courage and victory as though 
he had never been defeated." 

3. iMost of the works which have been published on the sub- 
ject, are too voluminous to admit of a general circulation, or to be 
read by a large portion of the public. The compiler of this 
work has, therefore, looked upon it as an object of no small im- 
portance, to put into the hands of the public, in one convenient 
volume, a refutation of Unitarianism in all the various forms 
which it assum.es, as it is driven from one position to another. 

In conclusion, whatever may be the fate assigned to these pa- 
ges by the impartial judgment of the public, the compiler can ap- 
peal to his Divine Redeemer, the adorable Immanuel, to whom 
he now dedicates this work, for the rectitude of his motives ; to 
whom, also, he directs his most feiTent prayers, that both writer 
and reader may be guided into all truth, 

Bloomfield, August 1, 1841, 



BELIEVER^S 



DEFENCE. 



CHAPTER L 

ON THE IMPROPRIETY OF MAKING HUMAN REASON THE 
TEST OF THE DOCTRINES OF DITINE REVELATION. 

It is one of the disadvantages to be encountered in 
this work, that while the evangehcal party take only the 
Scriptures for their guide, Unitarians claim it as a privi- 
lege to appeal from the sacred writers to the dictates of 
unassisted reason. The latter will submit their opinions 
to the test of Scripture, only when the Scriptures w^iil 
stand the ordeal of their opinions. Or, to speak with 
greater propriety, they choose to try rather the Scrip- 
tures by their creed, than their creed by the Scriptures. 
When the language of the evangelists and apostles ap- 
pears to favor their hypothesis, they are prepared to make 
the utmost use of its authority : but when the contrary 
is the case, and the plainest declarations of the sacred 
WTiters cannot be transformed into metaphor, allegory, 
or figurative representation : when the primitive teach- 
ers of Christianity obstinately refuse to become Unitari- 
ans, or even to be neutral, our opponents are prepared 
to pix)nounce against them a sentence of excommunica- 
tion, and to erase their testimony from the record, as an 
interpolation, a corruption of the sacred text, or an in- 
conclusive argument. 

That this is the course pursued by Unitarians, the fol- 
lowing extracts from some of their principal writers, 
will abundantly show : 

Socinins, the founder of Socinianisra, while speaking 
on the doctrine of Atonement, says :— ^' Though it were 
found not only once, but frequently, written in the Holy 
1* 



6 



UT^aSON not THie TEST OF THS 



Scriptures, I indeed would not believe it to be entirely as 
you suppose. Though the divine oracles may attest 
things to be so in appearance, yet they cannot by any 
means be admitted, because they are very evidently im- 
possible.'' 

Smalcius, another Unitarian, says : — We believe 
that though we should find it not once, nor tvvice, but 
very frequently, and most expressly written in the Scrip- 
tures, that God was made man, it would be much better, 
as it is an absurd proposition, entirely contrary to sound 
reason and full of blasphemy, to invent some other way 
of speaking which might render it safe to be affirmed of 
God, rather than understand it in the literal sense.*' 

Dr. Priestly, a very celebrated Unitarian, says, in the 
Theological Repository I think I have shown that 
the Apostle Paul often reasons inconclusiveJv, and there- 
fore that he wrote as any other person of his turn of 
mind or thinking, and in his situation, would have v\ rit- 
ten without any particular inspiration." 

Mr. Belsham. of the same school, says : — That 
Jesus of ?^l^azareth was a man constituted in all respects 
like other men, subject to the same infirmities, the same 
ignorance, prejudices and frailties.'' 

Mr. Theodore Parke, in an Ordination Sermon, re- 
cently preached in Boston, after speaking of what he 
calls the difficulties of the Bible, says : — 

••^ Hence the attempt which always fails, to reconcile 
the philosophy of our times with the poems in Genesis, 
written a thousand years before Christ; hence the at* 
tempt to conceal the contradictions in the record itself. 
Matters have come t@ such a pass that even now, he is 
deemed an infidel, if not by implication an atheist, 
whose reverence for the Most High forbids him to be- 
lieve that God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his 
son, a thought at which the flesh creeps with horror ; 
to believe it solely on the authority of an oriental story, 
written down nobody knows when, or by whom, or for 
what purpose: which, may be a poem, but cannot be 



DOCTRINES OF REVELATION. 



7 



the record of a fact unless God is the author of confu- 
sion and a he." — pp. 20, 21. 

On the authority of the written word, man was 
taught to beheve fiction for fact ; a dream for a miracu- 
lous revelation of God ; an oriental poem for a grave 
history of miraculous events ; a collection of am^atory 
idyls for a serious discourse • touching the mutual love 
of Christ and the Church ; they have been taught to 
accept a picture sketched by some glowing eastern im- 
agination, never intended to be taken for a reality, as a 
proof that the infinite God spoke in human words ; ap- 
peared in the shape of a cloud, a flaming bush,, or a 
man who ate and drank and vanished into smoke ; that 
lie irave counsels to-day, and the opposite to-morrow ; 
that he violated his own laws, was angry, and was only 
dissuaded by a mortal man from destroying at once a 
^^ hole nation — ^millions of men who rebelled against their 
leader in a moment of anguish.*' — pp. 19, 20. 
. *' The history of opinions on the New Testament is 
quite similar. It has been assumed at the outset, it 
would seem, with no sufficient reason, without the smal- 
lest pretence on its writers' parts, that all of its authors 
were infallibly and miraculously inspired, so that they 
could commit no error of doctrine or fact. Men have 
been bid to close their eyes at the obvious difference be- 
tween Luke and John ; the serious disagreem.ent be- 
tween Paul and Peter ; to believe on the smallest evi- 
dence, accounts which shock the moral sense and revolt 
the reason, and tend to place Jesus in the same series 
with Hercules and Apollonius of Tyana, accounts which 
Paul in the Epistles never mentions, though he also had 
a vein of the miraculous running; quite throuo^h him." 
- — p. 22,. 

Who shall assure us that they [the writers of the 
New Testament] were not sometimes mistaken in his- 
torical, as weil as doctrinal matters, did not sometimes 
confound the actual with the imaginary j,. and that the fan- 



8 



REASON NOT THE TEST OF THE 



cy of these pious writers never stood in the place at 
their recollection." — pp. 27, 28. 

No doubt the time will come when its tme charac- 
ter will be felt. Then it will be seen, that, amid all the 
contradictions of the Old Testament ; its legends so 
beautiful as fictions, so appalling as facts ; amid its pre- 
dictions that have never been fulfilled ; amid the puerile 
conceptions of God which sometimes occur, and the 
cruel denunciations that disfigure both Psalm and Pro- 
phecy, there is a reverence for man's nature, a sublime 
tmst in God, and a depth of piety rarely felt in these 
cold northern hearts of ours."'— p. 30. 

It may be pleaded in favor of Unitarianism that the 
opinions of Mr. Parker are not generally held by its ad- 
herents. This we hope is really the case : but what are 
we to make of the following notice of Mr. Parker, which 
recently appeared in the Unitarian Christian Register, 
the great organ of the Unitarians in Boston ; 

" We doubt not that the author is eminently a Chris- 
tian in life; and we have not said, nor dare we say, that 
he is otherwise than a Christian in belief.'' 

Mr. Grundy, another late author, says : — ^' To what 
end was reason given ? Precisely, that it m.ay be the 
rule of life ; the helm, by vvhich we must steer our course 
across the tempestuous billows of mortality ; the touch- 
stone of every doctrine ; the supreme umpire in every 
difficulty and doubt." 

Mr. Millard, of that class of Unitarians who claim to 
be called Christians, talks of bringins^ the doctrine of 
the Trinity to the test of reason, (see his work called 
the True Messiah, p. 23,) while it is well known that 
all classes of Unitarians call in question the translation 
of every passage of Scripture that stands opposed to 
their views. 

These quotations clearly show that Unitarians do ap- 
peal from Revelation to the dictates of human reason in 
matters of religion ; yea, that they receive reason as the 
test" and touchstone of every doctrine" as the rule 



DOCTRINES OF REVELATION. 



9 



of life'' and ^^the helm by which we are to steer our 
course across the tempestuous billows of mortality." 
They say that it is ''the supreme umpire in every difficul- 
ty and doubt and not content with thus exalting rea- 
son above Revelation, they proceed to tell us that the 
Scriptures contain '-puerile conceptions of God that 
-'cruel denunciations disfigure both Ps aim and Prophe- 
cy that contradictions are to be found between differ- 
ent parts of both the Old and New Testaments ; that 
Paul reasoned inconclusively, and was not inspired ; that 
the Saviour was ignorant and prejudiced as other men ; 
and finally, boldly affirm that if the Bible contains any 
thing contrary to their reason, they will not believe it, 
but invent some other way of speaking. 

What is this but saying we are determined to regulate, 
not our theological sentiments by the Scriptures , but the 
Scriptures by our pre-conceived opinions ? As we be- 
Keve that this course of our opponents, in thus placing 
reason above Revelation, is calculated to sow the seeds 
of infidelity in the minds of the unwary, we shall, for 
the following reasons, here enter our solemn protest 
against it : 

1. Human reason has been con^upted by sin. Were 
it not for this, we might have placed a great degree of de- 
pendence upon it ; yet even then it would not have been 
rational, to rely more on the powers of our own under- 
standing, than on the light of Divine Revelation, suppo- 
sing such a Revelation to have been enjoyed : because 
the knovvledge of man, when his reason was unimpaired, 
was limited ; but the knowledge of God is infinite. What 
a disparity, then, must there be, when the human un- 
derstanding is not only limited, but corrupted; when the 
unavoidable commerce between a man's thoughts and 
his depraved passions, fills his mind with a multitude of 
prejudices, which have a tendency in various ways to 
disguise, or conceal, the truth !— Were we bound to be- 
lieve nothing but what appears conformable to reason, 
in its pjesent state, we might soon reject the great objects 



10 



REASON NOT THE TEST OF THE 



revealed in the gospel, in general. For, after all the 
strenuous efforts of our adversaries, to remove the grand 
difficulties attending the Christian religion ; there are, 
and there always will be, such depths in it, as are unfa- 
thomable by the plummet of human reason. On this 
account, the apostle of the Gentiles calls the gospel 
foolishness. If the doctrines of Christianity had noth- 
ing mysterious and inexplicable in them, there would be 
no difficulty in believing; nor would faith be any more 
the gift of God, than the persuasion we have of natural 
truths. Consequently, there would be no more occa- 
sion for the agency of the Holy Spirit, in order to our 
believing the truths of the gospel, than there is to our 
understanding the problems of geometry. 

2. To act on this principle of our opposers is to treat 
God, as if he were less worthy of credit than an honest 
man. A fallible mortal, who has not forfeited his char- 
acter, as a person of veracity, \\'Ould take it deservedly 
ill, if, when speaking of an extraordinary fact, of which 
he was an eye-witness, he was to say, 'Take my word 
for it ; it is as I assert :' and we should reply, ' We must 
consider what you say. If we find it agreeable to our 
reason, we will believe you ; if not, we shall entirely re- 
ject your testimony.' If, then, such language would be 
reckoned indecent towards a fellow-worm, what must 
we think of a similar conduct, in regard to God, who is 
equally incapable of deceiving us, as he is of being de- 
ceived ? 

3. ''If reason were to be the rule of our faith. Reve- 
lation would be superseded. For, to what purpose 
should God make known the counsel of his will, if rea- 
son were allowed to say : ' This is not the counsel of 
God. It cannot be, for I do not comprehend it r' Thus 
the conscience would be influenced, not by Revelation, 
but by the doubt which reason had raised upon it. — ^Be- 
sides, if it were lawful for human reason to sit in judg- 
ment on Divine Revelation, the darkness introduced on 
our minds, by sin, could never be dissipated. For how 



DOCTRINES OF REVELATION. 



11 



should reason, proud of her own pretended abilities, and 
resolved to correct Revelation itself, be enlightened ? 
Accordino; to this arroo;ant and self-sufficient notion, faith 
in the Divine testimony is entirely set aside ; reason be- 
ing resolved on following her own light, in preference to 
that of God in the Scriptures. So that, instead of say- 
ing, I believe such a proposition, how incredible soever 
it may seem, because God has revealed it ; we must say, 
Though God has revealed it in the most plain and ex- 
press terms, we will not believe it, because it appears 
incredible to us. 

4. Were we thus to exalt reason, what is usually 
called Divine faith, would be much inferior to that 
which is human ; because we should not pa}^ so great a 
regard to the declarations of God, as to those of our 
parents, masters and tutors ; on whose bare authority we 
receive a great number of tmths, relating to the affairs 
of common life. But, in such a case, where is humili- 
ty, where is that filial, teachable spirit, which is one of 
the marks of our adoption and regeneration ? What 
need of submitting to the dictates of Inspiration, be- 
cause it is the Eternal Sovereign who speaks : when we 
have nothing to do but convince ourselves of all neces- 
sary truths, by their own internal characters ; and to re- 
ject, or embrace them, in exact proportion as they agree 
or disagree with the lidit of our own understanding; ? 

•••Reason, our opponents will say, reason is the 
foundation of faith : consequently, faith cannot be more 
certain than reason.* — Reason, I confess, leads to Reve- 
lation : because we are taught by it^ that God is mfalli- 
bly wise, and that we are liable to err ; that we cannot, 
therefore, do better than regard the light of Revela- 
tion, in preference to the uncertain conjectures of our 
own minds. But then, as reason leads us to this infalli- 
ble rule, which was given by uncontrollable authority : 
she requires us to receive, with submission, whatever the 
Great Revealer asserts, as a fact ; commands, as a duty ; 
or proposes, as an object of faith." — Abbadie. 



12 



REASON NOT THE TEST OF THE 



5. However unwilling modem philosophers , who 
have received all their true wisdom from the Bible, may 
be to confess the insufficiency of human reason in things 
Divine, the sages of antiquity were honest enough to 
acknowledge the uncertainty of its researches. 

^' Pythagoras changed the name of wise men into 
lovers of wisdom, as believing it not to be attained by 
human means. Socrates often repeated, ' that he knew 
but one thing with certainty, and that was his ignorance 
of all things.' Plato frequently reminds his pupils, that 
in religious subjects they were not to expect proof, but 
only probability from them. Aristotle condemns his 
predecessors as the most foolish and vain-glorious per- 
sons in the world, from a conviction of their ignorance, 
and the vanity of imagining that he had carried philoso- 
phy to the utmost perfection it was capable of ; though 
no one said or believed less of Divine things than he 
did. Tully complains, that we are blind in the dis- 
cernment of wisdom ; that some unaccountable error, 
and miserable ignorance of the truth, has got posses- 
sion of us. The Stoics pretended to know all things ; 
yet Plutarch says, ^ that there neither had been, nor was 
a wise man on the face of the earth.' Lactantius ob- 
serves, • They could not exceed the powers of nature, 
nor speak tn.ith on these (sacred) subjects, having never 
learned it of him who alone could instruct them ; nor 
ever came so near it, as when they confessed their igno- 
rance of it.' Epictetus found so much uncertainty in 
Divine things, that like many other heathen philosophers, 
he advised every one to follow the custom of his coun- 
try. (Dr, ElJis on the Knowledge of Divine Things,) 

•^'Socrates told Alcibiades, 'It is necessary you 
should wait for some person to teach you how you ought 
to behave yourself toward both the gods and men. He 
(says he) will do it who takes a true care of you. But 
methinks, as we read in Homer, that as Minerva dissi- 
pated the mist that covered Diomedes, and hindered him 
from distinguishing God and man ; so it is necessary 



DOCTRINES OF REVELATION. 



13 



that he should in the first place scatter the dai'kness that 
covers your soul, and afterward give you those remedies 
that are necessary to put you in a condition of discern- 
ing good and evil : for at present you know not how to 
make a difference.' ( Stanley^ s Lives,) ' Plato wish- 
ed for a prophet to reveal the will of God to us. vrith- 
out which we cannot know it.' And Plutarch says the 
same, ' that the knowledire of the eods can be had only 
from them.' Thus did they plainly attribute whatever 
they knew of the gods, or of divine things, to no prin- 
ciple but the gods. 

When Hiero, tyrant of Syracuse, asked the phi- 
losopher SimonideS; that important question. What is 
God ? the pmdent philosopher required a day to con- 
sider it, and doubled his request whenever he Vv^as called 
upon to give in his ansvv er. When Hiero was v^-eary of 
procrastination, and inquired the reason of his delay: — 
• Because,' said the philosopher, ' the longer I consider 
the subject, the more I am at a loss for a reply.' 

'•Such were the modesty and diffidence of Simon- 
ides I One who was much more justly reputed for vris- 
dom, exclaimed, ' O the depth of the riches both of the 
wisdom and of the knowledge of God ! How unsearch- 
able are his judgments, and his vrays past finding out !' 
Rom. xi, 33. ' Canst thou by searching find out God ? 
canst thou find out the Almighty to perfection ? It is 
as high as heaven : what canst thou do ? deeper than 
hell, what canst thou know ? The measure thereof is 
longer than the earth, and broader than the sea. But 
vain man would be wise, though man be born like a wild 
ass's colt.' Job xi, 7, 9, 1*2. The labor, however, has 
always been useless : ' the world by wisdom knew not 
God.' 1 Cor. i, 21. Among those who have not seen 
the dawn of Divine revelation, -there is none that un- 
derstandeth, that seeketh after God.' Rom. iii, 11. 
^' For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the 
sphit of a man which is in him? Even so the things of God 
knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.' 1 Cor. ii. 1 L 



14 



REASON NOT THE TEST OF THE 



The Christian Church was scarcely formed when 
m different places there started up certain pretended re- 
formers, who, not satisfied with the simplicity of that 
religion which was taught by the apostles, set up a new 
relio;ion drawn from their own licentious imaginations. 
Several of these are mentioned by the apostles, such as 
Hymeuceus and Alexander. The influence of these 
new teachers was but inconsiderable at first. During the 
lives of the apostles then attempts toward the perver- 
sion of Christianity were attended with little success. 
They however acquired credit and strength by degrees ; 
and even from the first dawn of the Gospel laid imper- 
ceptibly the foundation of those sects which produced 
aftenvard such trouble in the Christian Church. 

' Among the various sects that troubled the Chris- 
tian Church, the leading one was that of the Gnostics. 
These self-sufficient philosophers boasted of their being 
able to restore mankind to the knowledge (gnosis) of the 
supreme Being, which had been lost in the world. Un- 
der the general appellation of Gnostics are comprehend- 
ed all those who, in the first ages of Christianity, cor- 
mpted the doctrine of the Gospel by a profane mixture 
of the tenets of the oriental philosophy, with its Divine 
truths.' (Mosheim. book i, part ii, chap, v.) From 
these ^ knowing ones' arose, in the first and second cen- 
tury, a rich harvest of heretics and heresies, of which, 
not to mention them in detail, the reader may find an 
ample account in the first volume of JMosheim's Eccle- 
siastical History. A few specimens would show that 
the apostles acted wisely when they cautioned their dis- 
ciples against every thing destructive to the simplicity of 
the Gospel, and that they were not mistaken in the re- 
sults of this unnatural coalition of philosophy and reve- 
lation, which they predicted. ' There is no observation 
capable of fuller proof, than that religion, through all 
ages of the Christian Church, was more or less pure ac- 
cording to the alloy of philosophy or human reason mixed 
up with it. There was scarcely a heresy in the primi- 



DOCTRINES or REVELATION. 



15 



live Church that was not imbibed from Plato's academy, 
Zeno's portico, or some vain reasonings of the pagan 
wise men. In latter ages the schoolmen rejected Plato^ 
and exalted Aristotle into the chair of Christ, says Tile- 
nus, (TiL Syntagm,^ part ii, disp. 16, thes. 31,) esteem- 
ino; him the o-od of wisdom who could not err. And 
the controversy long subsisted to which of them an ap- 
peal lay for the determination of truth. Such is the vain 
arrogance of human reason, as to have puffed up some 
in every age to promise they would show us the truth 
by the mere light of it, and maintain it as the only rule 
of faith. ' Philosophy and vain deceit' have always 
proved highly injurious to the purity of religion, and the 
great objects of faith wdiich are supernaturally reveal- 
ed.' (Dr. Ellis.) 

Since philosophy has fallen into the hands of sin- 
cere and devout Christians, who valued above all learn- 
ing the faith delivered to the saints," and contend- 
ed" for that faith as the truest wisdom, it has been much 
reformed. But so long as it is human wisdom, it will 
never be fit to take the lead of revelation. Modern 
philosophers, as well as those of antiquity, whenever 
they attempt to model their creed by the rule of their 
reason, show themselves capable of the greatest ab- 
surdities. With our Unitarian divines, (as they are 
pleased exclusively to denominate themselves,) it is a 
first principle that reason directs to whatever is tme 
in speculation." To set reason free from the fetters of 
education, they have renounced the doctrine of human 
depravity, and of eternal punishment. Thus inspired 
with unlimited confidence in their own understanding, 
and divested of all apprehension of eternal consequen- 
ces, they are ' induced to reason cautiously and fre- 
quently, and learn to reason well,' So says one of 
themselves.^ And what can be more reasonably ex- 
pected from them than that they should all reason alike ? 

* Mr. James Yates, in a sermon on the grounds of Unitarian dissent, 
preached at Glasgow, pp. 16, 17, 22, 25. 



16 



REASON NOT THE TEST OF THE 



But their one, perfect, infallible, and unchangeable 
guide, which ^ directs to whatever is true in specula- 
tion,' is far from leading them all in the same path. A 
few lines from the author just mentioned will amply 
illustrate their agreements and their differences. 

'^^In order to convej a just idea of the constitution 
of Unitarian societies, it is necessary to premise, that, 
while we are united l3y a few great principles, there are 
numerous topics of inferior consequence respecting which 
we differ in opinion among ourselves. All Unitarians 
agree in denying that Jesus Christ was the eternal God ; 
and that he is the object of religious w^orship. Some 
of them, however, believe that he was employed, as an 
instrument in the hands of the Deity, to create the ma- 
terial vrorld, though not possessed of underived vvisdom 
and independent power : others believe only in his pre- 
existence. Some 0:0 still farther, maintaining: that he 
was simply a human being, but conceived in the womb 
of the virgin according to the introductory chapters of 
Matthew and Luke's Gospels : others see reason to be- 
lieve that those chapters are interpolations, and therefore 
deny the doctrine of the mkaculous conception. In 
like manner all Unitarians agree, that the death of Christ 
was an incalculable blessing to mankind : some, how- 
ever, do not presume to determine the exact manner in 
which it conduces to the good of men, while others 
think that the mode of its beneficial operation may be 
distinctly pointed out ; but all reject the Trinitarian 
♦ doctrines of satisfaction and vicarious atonement, be- 
lievine, not that Jesus saves his followers from the ev- 
erlasting misery to which they are supposed to have- 
been doomed in consequence of the sin of their first pa- 
rents, but that he saves them, by the force of his doc- 
trines, precepts, and example, from \^ce, ignorance, and 
superstition, and from the misery which is their natural 
result. The ordinance of baptism is a subject on which 
we entertain various opinions ; some of us practise the 
baptism: of infants, others of adults, and some tliiaik that 



DOCTRINES OF REVELATION. 



n 



the use of water may be omitted entirely. Concerning 
the question of an intermediate state, and the philoso- 
phical doctrines of materialism and necessity, we either 
remain in doubt or espouse opposite sides. On these 
and other points, which have been debated by orthodox 
Christians with rancorous animosity, we agree to differ.' 
(Mr, Yates^ Sermon, pp, 13 — 15.) 

Mr. Yates ought to have the thanks of the Christian 
world for speaking the truth. This curious passage 
shows that reason, as well as nature, has her frolics. 
The ' few great principles' in which the Unitarians agree, 
Mr. Y. has carefully laid down : viz. 1. ' The free and 
unbiassed use of the understanding on religious subjects.' 
2. ' They ought to offer prayer and adoration to God, 
the Father, only.' 3. ' They regard holiness of heart, 
and excellence of conduct, as the only means of obtain- 
ing salvation.' 

These three great Unitarian principles will not pre- 
vent the effect of our observations on the passage which 
we have cited. 

There is one part of this exposition of Unitarian- 
ism on which we may properly enough remark before 
we enter into the heart of it. Mr. Y. has shown that 
his friends are not yet agreed on ^ the philosophical doc- 
trines of materialism and necessity.' But ought they 
not to know from whence they take their departure, 
when they set out on their voyage of discovery ? When 
Thales, while contemplating the stars, fell into a ditch, 
how, said a woman, should you know what passes in 
the heavens when you see not what is just at your feet ? 
Again : ought they not to determine whether or not 
there is a spirit in them, before they assure themselves 
that they can without assistance from above find out 
God, who is a Spirit ? An apostle thought that none 
but the spirit of a man can know what is in man. But 
they think that, without a spirit, they can know the 
things of God. If all the phenomena of perception, 

reason, memory, will, and various affections, joined with 
2^ 



18 



REASON NOT THE TEST Ot THE 



the unequivocal and uniform testimony of Divine reve- 
lation, cannot assure a Unitarian that he has a spirit 
distinct from his body, how can his reason prove to it- 
self that there is a God who is a Spirit ? Where then 
is the reason, which is ^ a partial revelation of God, his 
nature, attributes, and will ?' If a man's reason be not 
satisfied on this point, how can he on Unitarian princi- 
ples believe the testimony of a revelation which contra- 
dicts his reason ? Or, if a contradiction be not admit- 
ted, how can his reason be a fit rule by which to judge 
whether that doctrine of revelation be true. This one 
concession is subversive of the whole fabric of Unitari- 
anism, v/hich is like a kingdom divided against itself. 
Once more : ought they not to be assured that their 
(what name should it have ?) spirit is free, has liberty, 
and is not bound down by the chains of irresistible ne- 
cessity, before they assure themselves that they are en- 
tering on a free inquiry ? 

Leaving them to consider how far it is proper to be- 
gin their reasonings where they now end them, let us 
examine the points in which they agree, and those in 
which they differ. 

1. Their agreement is all in negatives. They are 
only agreed about what is not. They agree in deny- 
ing that Jesus Christ is the eternal God, or the object 
of religious worship ; and in rejecting the doctrines of 
satisfaction and vicarious atonement, as well as the doc- 
trine of original sin and everlasting punishment. That 
is, they agree in renouncing these doctrines of the 
Bible. 

2. But in things positive, though led by the same 
infallible guide, 'which directs to whatever is true in 
speculation,' they agree not at all. They are not agreed 
whether Jesus Christ was the ' instrumental' Creator of 
the world, or a mere man. They are not agreed in 
what manner the world is benefitted by the death of 
Christ. They are not agreed whether baptism, (i. e. 
washing,) should be administered with or without wa- 



DOCTRINES OF HETELATIONr 



19 



ter ! Risum teneatis ? They are not agreed whether 
they have an immortal soul ; or whether they have any 
soul at all ; whether they are walking in glorious liber- 
ty, or are bound in the adamantine chains of inexorable 
necessity ! Such are the consistencies of all-searching, 
all-discerning, all-knowing reason ! When men, in- 
stead of ascending to heaven on a ladder let down from 
above, agree to build a tower of which the foundation 
shall be on earth, and the summit shall reach the skies, 
no wonder that God confounds their language ! 

To bring to light this disagreement among them- 
selves, was the design with which Mr. Yates was cited. 
The citation is intended to show, first, — that as the hea- 
then philosophers, without the aid of revelation, could 
discover and detect error, but could not find out truth, 
or agree among themselves on that great question, What 
is truth ? and therefore could never enlighten the v\ orld 
by their instructions : so, when philosophical divines 
bring the doctrines of revelation to the test of human 
reason, and make their own conceptions the rule by 
which they are to judge, they can easily agree to discard 
many points of doctrine which in their own opinion 
ought not to be taught, because they are false, but have 
among themselves no positive revealed truth on which 
they are agreed, and therefore are as unfit to instruct 
mankind as their elder brethren : and secondly — that as 
by the philosophy which some of the first Christian 
teachers adopted, Christianity Vv^as neutrahzed ; so by 
the negative and skeptical philosophy of modern teach- 
ers, Christianitv is destroved.'" — Hare, 

^ In whatever point of view,' says an able author, 
^ the subject be placed, the same arguments which show 
the incapability of man, by the light of nature, to du- 
cover religious truth, will serve likewise to show, that, 
wdien it is revealed to him, he is not warranted in judg- 
ing of it merely by the notions which he had previous- 
ly formed. For is it not a solecism to affimi, that man's 
natural reason is a fit standard for measuring the wis- 



20 



REASON NOT THE TEST OF THE 



dom or truth of those things with which it is wholly 
unacquainted, except so far as they have been super- 
naturally revealed ?' 

' But what, then.' (an objector will say,) ' is the pro- 
vince of reason ? Is it altogether useless ? Or are we 
to be precluded from using it in this most important of 
all concerns, for our security against error r' 

Our answer is, that we do not lessen either the 
utility or the dignity of human reason, by thus confining 
the exercise of it within those natural boundaries which 
the Creator himself hath assigned to it. We admit, 
with the Deist, that * Reason is the foundation of all 
certitude and we admit, therefore, that it is fully com- 
petent to judge of the credibility of any thing which is 
proposed to it as a Divine revelation. But we deny 
that it has a right to dispute (because we maintain that 
it has not the ability to disprove) the ivisdom or the 
truth of those things which revelation proposes to its 
acceptance. Reason is to judge whether those things 
be indeed so revealed : and this judgment it is to form, 
from the evidence to that effect. In this respect it is 
' the foundation of certitude,' because it enables us to 
ascertain the fact, that God hath spoken to us. But 
this fact once established, the credibility, nay, the cer- 
tainty of the things revealed, follows as of necessary 
consequence : since no deduction of reason can be more 
indubitable than this, that whatever God reveals must 
be true. Here, then, the authority of reason ceases. 
Its judgment is finally determined by the fact of the 
revelation itself : and it has thenceforth nothing to do, 
but to believe and to obey. 

' But are we to believe every doctrine, however in- 
comprehensible, however mysterious, nay, however 
seemingly contradictory to sense and reason ?' 

We answer, that revelation is supposed to treat of 
subjects with which man's natural reason is not conver- 
sant. It is therefore to be expected, that it should 
communicate some truths not to be fully comprehended 



DOCTRINES OF REVELATION. 



21 



by human understandings. But these we may safely 
receive, upon the authority which declares them, with- 
out danger of violating truth. Real and evident con- 
tradictions, no man can, indeed, beheve, whose intellects 
are sound and clear. But such contradictions are no 
more proposed for our belief, than impossibilities are en- 
joined for our practice : though things difficult to un- 
derstand, as well as things hard to perform, may per- 
haps be required of us, for the trial of our faith and re- 
solution. Seeming contradictions may also occur : but 
these may seem to be such because they are slightly or 
su|3erficially considered, or because they are judged of 
by principles inapplicable to the subject, and without 
so clear a knovrdedge of the nature of the things re- 
vealed, as may lead us to form an adequate conception 
of them. These, however, afford no solid argument 
against the truth of v/hat is proposed to our belief: 
since, unless we had really such an insight into the mys- 
terious parts of revelation as might enable us to prove 
them to be contradictory and false, Vv^e have no good 
ground for rejecting them ; and we only betray our own 
ignorance and perverseness in refusing to take God's 
word for the truth of things which pass man's under- 
standing. 

•'The simple question, indeed, to be considered, is, 
whether it be reasonable to believe, upon competent 
authority^ things which we can neither discover our-^ 
selves, nor, when discovered, fully and clearly compre- 
hend ? Now every person of commou observation must 
be aware, that unless he be content to receive solely 
upon the testimony of others a great variety of informa- 
tion, much of which he may be wholly unable to ac- 
count for or explain, he could scarcely obtain a compe- 
tency of knowledge to carry him safely through the 
common concerns of life. And with respect to scien- 
tific truths, the greatest masters in philosophy know full 
well that many things are reasonably to be believed, nay, 
must be believed on swe and certain grounds of con- 



22 



IMPORTANCE OF THE TRINITY. 



viction, though they are absolutely incomprehensible by 
our understandings, and even so difficult to be reconcil- 
ed with other truths of equal certainty, as to carry the 
appearance of being contradictory and impossible. This 
will serve to show, that it is not contrary to reason to 
believe, on sufficient authority, some things which can-- 
not be comprehended, and some things which, from the 
narrow and circumscribed views we are able to take of 
them, appear to be repugnant to our notions of truth. 
The o-round on which we believe such thino-s, is the 
strength and certainty of the evidence with which they 
are accompanied. And this is precisely the ground on 
which we are required to believe the tniths of revealed 
religion. The evidence that they come from God, is, to 
reason itself, as incontrovertible a proof that they are 
true, as in matters of human science would be the evi- 
dence of sense, or of mathematical demonstration." — 
Watson, 



CHAPTER II. 

ON THE IMPORTANCE OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE 
TRINITY. 

Before we enter upon the examination of the scrip- 
tural proofs of the Trinity, it will be necessary to im- 
press the reader with a sense of the importance of this 
revealed doctrine ; and the more so as it has been a part 
of the subtle warfare of the enemies of this fundamen- . 
tal branch of the common faith, to represent it as of : 
little consequence, or as a matter of useless speculation. 
Thus, Dr. Priestley, ' All that can be said for it is, that 
the doctrine, however improbable in itself, is necessary 
to explain some particular texts of Scripture ; and that, 
if it had not been for those particular texts, we should 
have found no want of it, for there is neither any fact 



IMPORTANCE OF THE TRINITY. 



23 



in nature^ nor any one purpose of morals, which are the 
object and end of all religion, that requires it.' 

••' The non-importance of the doctrine has been a fa- 
vorite subject with its opposers in all ages, that by al- 
laying all fears in the minds of the unwary, as to the 
consequences of the opposite errors, they might be put 
off their guard, and be the more easily persuaded to part 
with • the faith delivered to the saints.* The answer is, 
however, obvious. 

1. '''The knowledge of God is fundamental to reli- 
gion ; and as we know nothing of him but what he has 
been pleased to reveal, and as these revelations have all 
moral ends, and are designed to promote piety and not 
to gratify curiosity, all that he has revealed of himself 
in particular^ must partake of that character of funda- 
mental importance, which belongs to the knowledge of 
God in the aggregate. ' This is life eternal, that they 
might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ 
whom thou hast sent.' Nothing, therefore, can dis- 
prove the fundamental importance of the Trinity in 
Unity, but that which will disprove it to be a doctrine 
of Scripture. 

2. " Dr. Priestley allows, that this doctrine ' is ne- 
cessary to explain some particular texts of Scripture.' 
This alone is sufficient to mark its importance : espe- 
cially as it can be shown, that these 'particular texts 
of Scripture' comprehend a very large portion of the 
sacred volume ; that they are scattered throughout al- 
most all the books of both Testaments ; that they are 
not incidentally introduced only, but solemnly laid 
down as revelations of the nature of God ; and that 
they manifestly give the tone both to the thinTcing and 
the phrase of the sacred writers on many other weighty 
subjects. That which is necessary to explain so many 
passages of holy writ ; and without which, they are so 
incorrigibly unmeaning, that Unitarians have felt them- 
selves obliged to submit to their evidence, or to ex- 
punge them from the inspired record, carries with it an 



24 



IMPORTANCE OF THE TRINITY. 



importance of the highest character. So important, in- 
deed, is it, upon the showing of these opposers of the 
truth themselves, that we can only preserve the Scrip- 
tures by admitting it ; for they, first by excepting to the 
genuineness of certain passages, then by questioning 
the inspiration of whole books, and, finally, of the 
greater part, if not the vvhole New Testament, have 
nearly left themselves as destitute of a revelation from 
God, e.s Infidels themselves. No homage more ex- 
pressive has ever been paid to this doctrine, as the doc- 
trine of the Scriptures, than the liberties thus taken 
with the Bible, by those who have denied it ; no stron- 
ger proof can be offered of its importance, than that the 
Bible cannot be interpreted upon any substituted theo- 
ry ^ thej themselves being the judges. 

3. It essentially affects our views of God as the ob- 
ject of our worship, whether we regard him as one in , 
essence, and one in person, or admit that in the unity of 
this Godhead there are three equally Divine persons. 
These a.re two very different conceptions. Both can- 
not be true. The God of those who deny the Trinity, 
is not the God of those who worship the Trinity in 
Unity, nor on the contrary ; so that one or the other 
worships what is ^ nothing in the world;' and, for any 
reality in the object of worship, might a.s well vs'Orship 
a Pagan idol, which also, says St. Paul, ' is nothing in 
the vv orld,' ^ If God be Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, 
the duties owing to God will be duties owning to that 
triune distinction, wdiich must be paid accordingly ; and 
whoever leaves any of them out of his idea of God, 
comes so far short of honoring God perfectly, and of 
serving him in proportion to the manifestations he has 
made of himself.' 

As the object of our worship is affected by our re- 
spective views on this great subject, so also its charac- 
ter. We are betwixt the extremes of pure and accept- 
able devotion, and of gross and offensive idolatry, and 
must run to one or the other. If the doctrine of the 



IMPORTANCE OF THE TRINITY. 



25 



Trinity be true^ then those who deny it do not worship 
the God of the Scriptures, but a fiction of their own 
framing ; if it be false, the Trinitarian, by paying Di- 
vine honors to the Son and to the Holy Ghost, is equal- 
ly guilty of idolatry, though in another mode. 

Now it is surely important to determine this ; and 
which is the most likely to have fallen into this false and 
corrupt w^orship, the very prima facie evidence may de- 
termine : — the Trinitarian, who has the letter^ and plain 
common-sense interpretation of Scripture for his war- 
rant ; — or he who confesses, that he must resort to all 
the artifices of criticism, and boldly challenge the in- 
spiration of an authenticated volume, to get rid of the 
evidence which it exhibits against him, if taken in its 
first and most obvious meaning. It is not now attempt- 
ed to prove the Unitarian heresy from the Scriptures ; 
this has long been given up, and the main efi:brt of all 
modern writers on that side has been directed to cavil 
at the adduced proofs of the opposite doctrine. They 
are, as to Scripture argum.ent, wholly on the defensive, 
and thus allow, at least, that they have no direct war- 
rant for their opinions. We acknowledge, indeed, that 
the charge of idolatry would lie against us, could we be 
proved in error ; but they seem to forget, that it lies 
against them, should they be in error ; and that they 
are in this error, they themselves tacitly acknowledge, if 
the Scriptures, which they now, in a great measure, reject, 
must determine the question. On that authority, we 
may unhesitatingly account them idolaters, worshippers 
of what ' is nothing in the world and not of the God 
revealed in the Bible. Thus, the only hope which is 
left to the Unitarian, is held on the same tenure as the 
hope of the Deist, — the forlorn hope that the Scrip- 
tures, which he rejects, are not true ; for if those texts 
they reject, and those books which they hold of no au- 
thority, be established, then this whole charge, and its 
consequences. He full against them. 

4. " Our lov& to God^ which is the sum of every duty. 
3 



26 



IMPORl'ANCE Oi' THE TRINITY. 



its sanctifying motive^ and consequently a compendium 
of all true religion, is most intimately and even essential- 
ly connected with the doctrine in question. God's love 
to us is the ground of our love to him ; and by our views 
of that, it must be heightened or diminished. The love 
of God to man in the gift of his Son is that manifesta- 
tion of it on which the Scriptures m^ost emphatically and 
frequently dwell, and on which they establish our duty 
of loving God and one another. Now the estimate 
which we are to take of the love of God, must be the 
value of his gifts to us. His greatest gift is the gift of 
his Son, through whom alone we have the promise of 
everlasting life ; but our estimate of the love which 
gives must be widely different, according as we regard 
the gift bestowed, — as. a creature, or as a Divine per- 
son, — as merely a Son of man, or as the Son of God. 
If the former only, it is difficult to conceive in what this 
love, constantly represented, as ' unspeakabW and aston- 
ishing, could consist. Indeed, if we suppose Christ to 
be a man only, on the Socinian scheme, or as an exalt- 
ed creature, according to the Arians, God might be ra- 
ther said to have ' so loved Ms Sort' than us, as to send 
him into the world, on a service so honorable and which 
was to be followed by so high and vast a reward, that 
he, a creature^ should be advanced to universal domin- 
ion and receive universal homage as the price only of 
temporary sufferings, which, upon either the Socinian 
or Arian scheme, were not greater than those which 
many of his disciples endured after him, and, in many 
instances, not so great. 

" For the same reason, the doctrine which denies our 
Lord's divinity diminishes the love of Christ himself, 
takes away its generosity and devotedness, presents it 
under views infinitely below those contained in the New 
Testament, and weakens the motives which are drawn 
from it to excite our gratitude and obedience. ^ If 
Christ was in the form of God, equal with God, and 
very God; it was then an act of infinite love and con- 



IMPORTANCE OF THE TRINITY. 



27 



descension in him to become man ; but if he was no 
more than a creature, it was no surprising condescen- 
sion to embark in a work so glorious ; such as being the 
Saviour of mankind, and such as would advance him 
to be Lord and Judge of the world, to be admired, rev- 
erenced, and adored, both by men and angels.' — Wa- 
ierland. To this it may be added, that the idea of dis- 
interested, generous love, such as the love Christ is re- 
presented to be by the Evangelists and the Apostles, 
cannot be supported upon any supposition but that he 
was properly a Divine person. As a man and as a 
creature only, however exalted, he would have profited 
by his exaltation ; but, considered as Divine, Christ 
gained nothing. God is full and perfect — he is exalt- 
ed ' above blessing and praise.' The whole, therefore^ 
was in him generous, disinterested love, ineffable and 
affecting condescension. The heresy of the Socinians 
and Arians totally annihilates, therefore, the true char- 
acter of the love of Christ, ' so that,' as Dr. Sherlock 
well observes, ' to deny the Divinity of Christ alters 
the very foundations of Christianity, and destroys all 
the powerful arguments of the love, humility, and con- 
descension of our Lord, which are the peculiar motives 
of the Gospel.' — Stilling fleets 

^' But it is not only in this view that the denial of the 
Divinity of our Lord would alter the foundation of the 
Christian scheme, but in others equally essential ; For, 

1. ^'The doctrine of satisfaction or atonement de- 
pends upon his Divinity; and it is, therefore, consis- 
tently denied by those who reject the former. So im- 
portant, however, is the decision of this case, that the 
very terms of our salvation^ and the ground of our 
hope, are affected by it. 

" ' No creature could merit from God, or do works of 
supererogation. If it be said that God might accept it 
as he pleased, it may be said, upon the same principle, 
that he might accept the blood of bulls and of goats. 
Yet the Apostle tells us, that it is not possible that the 



28 



IMPORTANCE OF THE TRINITY, 



hlood of hulls and of goats should taJce away sin; 
which words resolve the satisfaction, not merely into 
God's free acceptance, but into the intrinsic value of 
the sacrifice.' — Waterland. Hence the Scriptures so 
constantly connect the atonement with the character, — ■ 
the very Divinity of the person suffering. It was Je- 
hovah who was pierced, Zech. xii. 11 ; God^ who pur- 
chased the church with his own hlood, Acts xx. 28. It 
was the Lord, that bought us, 2 Pet. ii. 1. It was the 
Lord of glory that was crucified, 1 Cor. ii. 8. 

" It is no small presumption of the impossibility of 
holding, with any support from the common sense of 
mankind, the doctrine of atonement with that of an in- 
ferior Divinity, that these opinions have so uniformly 
slided down into a total denial of it ; and by almost all 
persons, except those who have retained the pure faith 
of the Gospel, Christ is regarded as a man only ; and 
no atonement, in any sense, is allowed to have been 
made by his death. The terms, then, of human salva- 
tion are entirely different on one scheme and on the 
other ; and with respect to their advocates, one is ' un- 
der law,^ the other 'under grace one takes the cause 
of his own salvation into his own hands, to manage it 
as he is able, and to plead with God, either tliat he is ■ ' 
just, or that he may be justified by his own penitence 
and acts of obedient virtue ; the other pleads the meri- 
torious death and intercession of his Saviour; in his 
name and mediation makes his requests known unto ; ; 
God ; and asks a justification by faith, and a renewal of 
heart by the Holy Ghost. One stands with all his of- , ;< 
fences before his Maker, and in his own person, without 
a mediator and advocate ; the other avails himself of 
both. A question which involves such consequences, 
is surely not a speculative one ; but deeply practical and 
vital, and must be found to be so in its final issue. 

2. ''It totally changes the character of Christian ex- 
perience. Those strong and painful emotions of sor- 
row and darm, which characterize the descriptions and 



IMPORTANCE OF THE TRINITY. 



29 



example of Repentance in the Scriptures, are totally 
incongruous and uncalled for, upon the theory which 
denies man's lost condition, and his salvation by a pro- 
cess of redemption. Faith, too, undergoes an essen- 
tial change. It is no longer faith in Christ. His doc- 
trine or his mission are its objects ; but not, as the New- 
Testament states it, His person^ as a surety, a sacrifice, 
a mediator : and much less than any thing else can it be 
called, in the language of Scripture, ^ faith in his 
BLOOD,' a phrase utterly incapable of an interpretation 
by Unitarians. Nor is it possible to offer up prayer 
to God in the name of Christ, though expressly enjoin- 
ed upon his disciples, in any sense which would not jus- 
tify all the idolatry of the Roman Church, in availing 
themselves of the names, the interests, and the merits 
of saints. 

3. '^LovE to Christ, which is made so eminent a 
grace in internal and experimental Christianity, changes 
also its character. It cannot be supreme, for that would 
be to break the first and great command, ' Thou shalt 
love the Lord thy God with all thy heart,' if Christ him- 
self be not that Lord our God. It must be love of the 
same kind we feel to creatures from whom we have re- 
ceived any benefit, and a passion, therefore, to be guard- 
ed and restrained, lest it should become excessive and 
wean our hearts and thoughts from God, But surely it 
is not under such views that love to Christ is represented 
in the Scriptures ; and against its excess, as against crea- 
turely attachments, we have certainly no admonition, no 
cautions. 

4. ''The general and habitual exercises of the affec- 
tions of TRUST, HOPE, JOY, &LC, towards Christ, are all 
interfered with by the Unitarian doctrine. This has, 
in part, been stated ; but ' if the Redeemer were not 
omnipresent and omniscient, could we be certain that 
he always hears our prayers, and knows the source and 
remedy of all our miseries ? If he were not all-merciful, 
could we be certain he must always be willing to par- 

3* 

* ' - ' ■ ' ^ ■ ■■ 



30 



IMPORTANCE OF THE TRINITY, 



don and relieve us ? If he were not all powerful, could 
we be sure that he must always be able to support and 
strengthen, to enlighten and direct us ? Of any less 
being than God, we might suspect that his purposes 
might waver, his promises fail, his existence itself, per- 
haps terminate ; for, of every created bemg, the exist- 
ence must be dependent and terminable.' 

The language^ too, I say not of the Church of Christ 
in all ages, for that that has been formed upon her faith^ 
but of the Scriptures themselves, must be altered and 
brought down to these inferior views. No dying saint 
can say, ' Lord Jesus, receive my spirit,' if he be a 
man like ourselves ; and the redeemed neither in heav- 
en nor in earth can dare to associate a creature so with 
God in divine honors and solemn worship, as to unite in 
the chorus, ^'Blessing, and honor, and glory, and power 
be unto Him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the 
Lamb, for ever !' 

The same essential changes must be made in the 
doctrine of Divine agency in the heart of man, and in 
the church, and the same confusion introduced into the 
language of Scripture. ' Our salvation by Christ does 
not consist only in the expiation of our sins, fcc, but in 
communication of divine grace and power, to renew and 
sanctify us : and this is every where in Scripture attri- 
buted to the Holy Spirit, as his peculiar office in the 
economy of man's salvation : it must therefore make a 
fundamental change in the doctrine of divine grace and 
assistance, to deny the Divinity of the Holy Spirit. For 
can a creature be the universal spring and fountain of 
divine grace and life ! Can ^ finite creature be a kind 
of universal soul to the whole Christian Church, and to 
every sincere member of it ? Can a creature make 
such close application to our minds,know our thoughts^ 
set bounds to our passions, inspire us with new affec- 
tions and desires, and to be more intimate to us than 
we are to ourselves ? If a creature be the only instru- 
ment and principle of grace, we shall soon be tempted 



IMPORTANCE OF THE TRINITY. 



31 



either to deny the grace of God. or to make It an ex- 
ternal thmg, and entertam very mean conceits of it. 
All this has been felt so forcibly by the deniers of the 
Divinity of the Holy Spirit, that they have escaped on- 
ly by taking another leap down the gulf of eiTor ; and 
at present the Unitarians deny that there is any Holy 
Ghost, and resolve the whole into a figm-e of speech. 

But the importance of the doctrine of the Holy 
Trinity may be finally argued from the manner in which 
the denial of it would altect the credit of the Holy 
Scriptures themselves : for if this doctrine be not con- 
tained in them, theu' tendency to mislead is obvious. 
Their constant language is so adapted to deceive, and 
to compel the behef of falsehood, even in fundamental 
points, and to lead to the practice of idolatry itself, that 
they would lose all claim to be regarded as a revelation 
from the God of truth, and ought rather to be shunned 
than to be studied. A great part of the Scriptures is 
directed against idolatry, which is declared to be • that 
abommable thing which the Lord hateth and in pur- 
suance of this design, the doctrine that there is but one 
God is laid down in the most explicit terms, and con- 
stantly confimied by appeals to his works. The very 
fii^st command in the decalogue is, - Thou shalt have 
no other gods before me ;* and the sum of the law. as 
to our duty to God, is, that we love Hi3i • with all our 
heart, and rnmd, and soul, and strength.' If the doc- 
trme of a Trinity of Divine persons in the unity of the 
Godhead be consistent with all this, then the style and 
manner of the Scriptures are in perfect accordance with 
the moral ends they propose, and the truths in which 
they would instruct mankind ; but if the Son and the 
Holy Spirit are creatures, then is the language of the 
sacred books most deceptive and dangerous. For how 
is it to be accounted for, in that case, that in the Old Tes- 
tament, God should be spoken of in plural temis, and 
that this plurality should be restricted to three ? How 
is it that the very name Jehovah should ge given to each 



32 



IMPORTANCE OF THE TRINITY. 



of them, and that repeatedly, and on the most solemn 
occasions ? How is it that the promised incarnate Mes- 
siah should be invested, in the prophecies of his adventj 
with the loftiest attributes of God, and that works infi- 
nitely superhuman, and divine honors should be predict- 
ed of him ? and that acts and characters of unequivocal 
divinity, according to the common apprehensions of 
mankind should be ascribed to the Spirit also ? How 
is it that, in the New Testament, the name of God 
should be given to both, and that without any intima- 
tion that it is to be taken in an inferior sense? That 
the creation and conservation of all things should be 
ascribed to Christ ; that he should be ivor shipped by 
angels and by men ; that he should be represented as 
seated on the throne of the universe, to receive the ado- 
rations of all creatures ; and that in the very form of 
initiation by baptism into his church, itself a public and 
solemn profession of faith, the baptism is enjoined to be 
performed in the one name of the Father, Son, and Holy 
Ghost ? One God and two creatures ! As though the 
very door of entrance into the Christian Church should 
have been purposely made the gate of the worst and 
most corrupting error ever introduced among mankind — 
trust and worship in creatures^ as God ; the error which 
has spread darkness and moral desolation over the whole 
pagan world ! 

And here it cannot be said that the question is beg- 
ged — that more is taken for granted than Unitarians 
will allow ; for this argument does not rest at all upon 
what the denier's of our Lord's Divinity understand by 
all these terms, and what interpretations may be put 
upon them. This is the popular view of the subject 
which has just been drawn from the Scriptures ; and 
they themselves acknowledge it by resorting to the arts 
and labors of far-fetched criticism, in order to attach to 
these passages of Scripture a sense different to the obvi- 
ous and popular one. It is so taken, and has been taken 
in all ages, by the wisest men and most competent critics, 



IMPORTANCE OF THE TRINITT* 83 

to be the only consistent senses of the sacred volume ; 
a circumstance which still more strongly proves^ that if 
the Scriptures were written on Unitarian principles they 
are more unfortunately expressed than any book in the 
world ; and they can, on no account, be considered a ' 
Divine Revelation, not because of their obscurity, for 
they are not obscure, but because terms are used in them 
which convey a sense different from what the writers^ 
intended, if indeed they were Unitarians. But their 
evidences prove them to be a revelation of truth, from 
the God of truths and they cannot therefore be so writ- 
ten as to lead men, who use only ordinary care, into fun- 
damental error ; and the conclusion, therefore, must in- 
evitably be, that if we must admit either on the one 
hand what is so derogatory to the Scriptures, and so 
subversive of all confidence in them, or, on the other^ 
that the doctrine of the Divinity of the Son and Holy 
Spirit is there explicitly taught, these is no medium 
between absolute infidelity and the acknowledgment 
of our Lord's Divinity; and, indeed, to adopt the 
representation of a great divine, it is rather to rave 
than to reason, to suppose that he whom the Scriptures 
teach us to regard as the Saviour of our souls, and as 
our wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemp- 
tion ; he who hears our prayers, and is always present 
with his Church throughout the world, who sits at 
the right hand of God, in the glory of his Father^ 
and who shall come at the last day, in glory and majes- 
ty, accompanied with ministering angels, to judge all - 
mankind and to bring to light the very secrets of their 
hearts, should be a mere man^ or a created being of any 
kind.''— Watson, 



34 



PERSONALITY AND DIVINITY 



CHAPTER III. 

PERSONALITY AND DIVINITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 

^* When the doctrine of the Holy Spirit is considered ; ■ 
in its connection with the doctrine of the trinity, there 
are two points nearly related to each other, which claim 
our attention : \dz. I. Whether the Holy Spirit be a 
mere energy, or a real person ? H. Whether he be a S 
creature, or God ? 

1. In entering upon the first of these inquiries, it is 
necessary to state distinctly, that we are not at present 
inquiring whether the Holy Spirit be a third person in 
the Godhead. With that question we have here noth- 
ing to do. Our object is, to ascertain whether the Holy 
Spirit be, on the one hand, the mere operation of God, 
or, on the other hand, an intelligent and voluntary agent, 
i. e. a person."' And, 

1. The mode of his subsistence in the sacred Trini- 
ty proves his Personality. He proceeds from the Father 
and the Son, and cannot, therefore, be either. To say • 
tliat an attribute proceeds and comes forth would be a - ■ 
gross absurdity. 

2. ^^From so many Scriptures being wholly unintel- 
ligible and even absurd, unless the Holy Ghost is allow- 
ed to be a person. For as those who take the phrase 
as ascribing no more than a figurative Personality to an 
attribute, make that attribute to be the energy or power 
of God, they reduce such passages as the following to 
utter unmeaningness : ' God anointed Jesus with the 
Holy Ghost and with power that is, with the power of • , 
God and with power. ' That ye may abound in hope 
through the power of the Holy Ghost,' that is, through 
the power of power. ' In demonstration of the Spirit 
and of power,' that is, in demonstration of power and 
of power. And if it should be pleaded that the last 



OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 



35 



passage is a Hebraism for ^ powerful demonstration of 
the Spirit,' it makes the interpretation still more obvi- 
ously absurd; for it would then be * the powerful de- 
monstration of power.' "It seemed good to the Holy 
Ghost.' to the power of God, * and to us.' ^ The Spi- 
rit and the bride say. Come.' — the power of God and 
the bride say. Come. !!Mcdern Unitarians, from Dr. 
Priestley to jlr. Belsham. venture to find fault with the 
style of the Apostles iu some instances : and those pen- 
men of the Holy Spirit have, indeed, a very unfortu- 
nate method of expressing themselves for those who 
would make them the patrons of Lnitarianism ; but 
they would more justly deserve the censures of these 
judges of the ' words which the Holy Ghost' taught, had 
they been really such writers as the Unitarian scheme 
would make them, and of which the above are instan- 
ces. 

3. Personification of any kind is. in some passages 
in which the Holy Ghost is spoken of. impossible. The 
reality which this figure of speech is said to present to us 
is either some of the attributes of God. or else the doc- 
trine of the Gospel. Let this theory, then, be tried 
upon the following passages : ^ He shall not speak of 
himself^ but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he 
speak.' What attribute of God can here be personifi- 
ed ? And if the doctrine of the Gospel be arrayed 
with personal attributes, where is there an instance of 
so monstrous a prosopopoeia as this passage would pre- 
sent ? — the doctrine of the Gospel not speaking • of 
huTLself but speaking - whatsoever he shall hear I' — 
The Spirit maketh intercession for us.' What attri- 
bute is capable of interceding, or how can the doctrine 
of the Gospel intercede? Personification, too. is the 
language of poetry, and takes place naturally only in 
excited and elevated discourse ; but if the Holy Spirit 
be a personification, we find it in the ordinary and cool 
strain of mere narration and argumentative discourse in 
the New Testament, and in the most incidental conver- 



36 



PERSONALITY AND DIVINITY 



sations. ' Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye 
beheved ? We have not so much as heard v/hether 
there be any Holy Ghost.' How impossible is it here 
to extort, by any process whatever, even the shadow of 
a personification of either any attribute of God, or of 
the doctrine of the Gospel. So again, '^The Spirit 
said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this cha- 
riot.' Could it be any attribute of God which said this, 
or could it be the doctrine of the Gospel." — Watson. 

4. That the Holy Ghost is a person, and not an at- 
tribute, is proved by the use of masculine pronouns and 
relatives in the Greek of the New Testament, in con- 
nection with the neuter noun Spirit ; and by so many 
distinct personal acts being ascribed to him, as in the 
following passages of Scripture : He creates and gives 
life, Job xxxiii. 4, is seen descending i/i a bodily shape, 
Luke iii. 22, comm^ands apostles. Acts viii. 29, and xi. 

12, lifts up an apostle through the air by his own power, 
V. 39, sends messengers. Acts x. 19, appoints ministers 
in the church. Acts xx. 28, calls apostles. Acts xiii. 2, 
bestows gifts, Heb. ii. 4, speaketh to the churches. Rev. 
ii. 7, spake by the prophets. Acts xx\dii. 15, 2 Pet. i. 
21, speaketh expressly, 1 Tim. iv. 1, renews his peo- 
ple, Titus iii. 5, helpeth infirmities, Rom. viii. 26, 
maketh intercession, Rom. viii. 26, reveals mysteries, 
Eph. iii. 5, searcheth all things, 1 Cor. ii. 10, teacheth 
all things, John xiv. 26, guideth into all truth, John xvi. 

13, beareth witness in earth and heaven, Rom. viii. 16, 
1 John V. 6, pronounceth worth of blessing. Rev. xiv. 
13, testifies of Christ, John xv. 26, glorifies Christ, John 
xvi. 14, is ANOTHER Comforter, distinct from 
Christ, John xiv. 16, has a mind of his own, Rom. viii. 
27, has a will of his own, 1 Cor. xii. 11, has power 
of his own, Rom. xv. 13, has worship performed in his 
name, together with the Father and Son, Matt, xxviii. 19, 
has a temple for his worship, 1 Cor. vi. 15, abides with 
his people forever, John xiv. 16, and, by no people is blas- 
phemed; but upon the peril of damnation, Matt. xii. 3L 



OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 



37 



In addition to this, it may be remarked, that if the 
Holy Spirit is nothing but an attribute, and not a person, 
he must be destitute of intelhgence, for how can an attri- 
bute be said to know ? Is not the idea of personahty 
and intelhgence inseperably connected ? If so, then a 
denial of the one amounts to a denial of the other. 
This is conceded by the Unitarians. The concession 
was once made in the presence of the writer by the 
Rev. James Hayes, while in public controversy. Be- 
ing asked by the Rev. John H. Power if the Comfort- 
er, 'Svhich is the Holy Ghost," that the Saviour prom- 
ised to send into the world, was God the Father, he an- 
swered. No. Was it a person ? He replied, No. Was 
it an aojent ? He said, Yes. Was it an intellig-ent 
agent ? He responded. No. Consequently we were 
led to the conclusion that the Holy Ghost which was to 
reprove the world of sin, of righteousness, and of a 
judgment to come — which was to comfort and sanctify 
the children of God, vvas perfectly ignorant, an unintel- 
ligent agent. 

This imputation of perfect ignorance to the Holy 
Ghost is not peculiar, however, to Mr. Hayes. It ne- 
cessarily follows from a denial of his personality, and 
is, we believe, admitted by a majority of Unitarians. 

We will now pass to answer some objections urged 
against the personality of the Holy Spirit, The first 
is based upon certain figurative expressions, and is thus 
stated by Mr. Millard, in his True Messiah, pp. 83. 

The Spirit is represented as something with which 
a person can be anointed. ^ The Spirit of the Lord 
God is upon me : because the Lord hath anointed me to 
preach good tidings unto the meek.' Isa. Ixi. L The 
Lord Jesus in this passage, is represented as one whom 
the Lord God had anionted with his Spirit. In another 
passage this same Spirit is called oil^ 

Now I would ask my candid reader how he can foim 
any consistent idea of those passages of Scripture, if 
he beheve the Holy Ghost to be a person ? It is rep- 
4 



38 



PERSONALITY AND DIVINITY 



resented by oil, and by an unction which God is rep- 
resented as anointing his Son with. God said, ' I 
will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh.' Acts ii. 17. 
Here the Spirit is represented as something that may be 
poured outJ^ 

Mr. Grundy says : 

" The Holy Spirit is said to be given by measure ; to 
be poured out ; the disciples are said to be filled and 
baptized with it ; it is said to be quenched ; and m sever- 
al mstances it is said to be divided. How do these say- 
ings agree with the idea of his personahty ?" Vol. i. 
pp. 166, 168. 

In this objection we are presented with a hterary cu- 
riosity ! How is it that Unitarians who are perpetually 
dreaming about metaphors, can see none here r When 
they are determined to interpret all these Scrip- 
tural expressions literally, do they not seize the long 
sought opportunity to prove that the Spirit is not spirit, 
but matter ? What but matter, which is an extended 
substance, can be measured, divided, poured out ? 
What but fire, which is matter, can be extinguished ? 
And wherewith can any man be washed but with water, 
which is another species of matter ? And lastly, what 
is spirit but breath or wind, that is air which is also ma- 
terial ? Thus the demonstration is complete, and the 
favorite system of materialism is triumphant. But ev- 
ery unprejudiced person will at once see that all these 
are figurative expressions, by which the properties of 
matter are predicated of spirit ; and therefore that every 
argument founded upon the literal interpretation of them 
must fall to the ground. Unless Unitarians seriously 
intend to deny all spirituality of the Spirit, they will 
find that this objection is leveled against their own as 
much as the common hypothesis. They think it 'per- 
fectly rational to suppose that the Divine attributes were 
divided, measured, and poured out, or that persons were 
baptized with them, or quenched them.' Now let them 
be asked, What is the cubic measure of any one of the 



OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 



39 



Divine attributes ? Into how many parts is it divisible ? 
What quantity of it will fill a man o£ ordinary stature ? 
After a division of it into many parts, do these parts 
attract each other again, or does division annihilate some 
of them ? What becomes of it when it is quenched ? 

O," say Unitarians, these are figurative expressions." 
The answer is satisfactory ; but equally so as a reply to 
their objections to the personality of the Holy Spirit. 

Their next objection is founded on the supposed ig- 
norance of the Holy Spirit. Because our Lord has 
said, No one knoweth the Son but the Father, neither 
knoweth any one the Father save the Son,'' Unitarians 
infer that the Holy Spirit knew neither the Father nor 
the Son, without a special revelation. From hence they 
argue that the Holy Spirit cannot possibly be a person 
. in the Godhead distinct from the Father." 

This argument is founded on a gross mistake. For, 
as we have already seen, " the Spirit searcheth all things, 
yea, the deep things of God." What is here said of 
the Father and the Son, is therefore asserted also of 
the Holy Ghost. No one knoweth the things of God, 
but the Spirit of God, and he to whom the Spirit of God 
shall reveal them." Will Unitarians now draw the 
y same inference concerning the Father and the Son ? 

Lastly: The expressions of the Holy Spirit being 
given by the Father, and sent by Jesus Christ, are said 
to be incompatible with the idea of its being a per- 
son. 

What an argument ! So the Son of God was not a 
person, because, forsooth, God so loved the world 
that he gave his only begotten Son," John iii. 16 ; and 
because the Father sent him into the world." But 
for this Unitarians have an answer. We are informed 
that Jesus Christ ^'came voluntarily." But if it had 
not been expressly said that Jesus Christ came volun- 
tarily into the world, they would have denied him the 
honor of personality. And yet every one of us came 
into the world involuntarily. 



40 



PERSONALITY AND DIVINITY 



11. Having, as we consider, established the proper 
personality of the Holy Spirit, upon the authority of 
tlie word of God, we shall now pass to offer some addi- 
tional arguments, going to show not only that he is a 
person, but that he is a Divme Person, and consequent- 
ly God. 

1. The Spirit is represented as an agent in crea- 
tion, ' moving upon the face of the waters,' and it forms 
no objection to the argument, that creation is ascribed 
to the Father, and also to the Son, but gi-eat confirma- 
tion of it. That creation should be effected be all the 
three Persons of the Godhead, thouo^h actino; in differ- 
ent respects, yet so that each should be a Creatoj', and, 
therefore, both a Person, and a Divine Person, can be 
explained only by their unity in one essence. On ev- 
eiy other hypothesis this Scriptural fact is disallowed, 
and therefore no other hypothesis can be true. If the 
Spirit of God be a mere influence, then he is not a Cre- 
ator, distinct from the Father and the Son, because he 
is not a person ; but this is refuted, both by the passage 
just quoted and by Pslam xxxii. 6, ^' By the Word of 
THE Lord were the heavens made : and all the host of 
them by the breath (Heb. Spirit) of his mouth." 
This is farther confirmed bv Job xxxiii. 4, ' The Spir- 
IT OF God hath made me, and the breath of the AU 
mighty hath given me life where the second clause 
is obviously exegetic of the former, and the whole text 
proves that, in the patriarchal age, the followers of the 
true religion ascribed creation to the Spirit, as well as 
to the Father ; and that one of his appellations was ' the 
Breath of the Almighty.' Did such passages stand 
alone, there might, indeed, be some plausibility in the 
criticism which solves them by a personification ; but 
connected as they are with that whole body of e\T[dence, 
which has been and shall be adduced, as to the con- 
curring doctrine of both Testaments, they are inex- 
pungable. Again : if the Personality of the Son and 
the Spirit be allowed^ and yet it is contended that they 



or THE HOLY SPIRIT. 



41 



were but instruments in creation, through whom the 
creative power of another operated, but which creative 
power was not possessed by them ; on this hypothesis, 
too, neither the Spirit nor the Son can be said to cre- 
ate, any more than Moses created the serpent into 
which his rod was turned, and the Scriptures are again 
contradicted. To this association of three Persons in 
creative acts may be added a hke association in acts of 
PRESERVATION, which has been well called a continued 
creation, and by that term is expressed in the following 
passage : Psalm civ. 27-30, ' These wait all upon thee, 
that thou mayest give them their meat in due season. 
Thou hidest thy face, they are troubled ; thou takest 
away their breath, they die, and return to dust : thou 
SENDEST FORTH THY Spirit, they are created, and thou 
renewest the face of the earth.' It is not surely here 
meant that the Spirit, by which the generations of ani- 
mals are perpetuated, is wind ; and if he be called an 
attribute, wisdom, power, or both united, where do we 
read of such attributes being ' sent,' ^ sent forth from 
God ?' The personality of the Spirit is here as clearly 
marked as when St. Paul speaks of God ^ sending forth 
the Spirit of his Son,' and when our Lord promises to 
" send^^ the Comforter; and as the upholding and pre- 
serving of created things is ascribed to the Father and 
the Son, so here they are ascribed, also, to the Spirit, 
' sent forth from ' God to ' create and renew the face of 
the earth.' 

2. The next association of the three Persons we 
find in the inspiration of the prophets. ' God spake 
unto our fathers by the prophets,' says St. Paul, Heb. 
i. 1. St. Peter declares, these ' holy men of God spake 
as they were moved by the Holy Ghost,' 2 Pet. i. 21 ; 
and also that it was the Spirit of Christ which was in 
them,' 1 Pet. i. 11. We may defy any Unitarian to 
interpret these three passages by making the Spirit an 
influence or attribute, and thereby reducing the term 
Holy Ghost into a figure of speech. ' God,^ in the 
4* 



42 



PERSONALITY AND BIVINITY 



first passages, is, unquestionably, God the Father, and 
the ' holy men of God,' the prophets, would then, ac- 
cording to this view, be moved by the influence of the 
Father ; but the influence, according to the third pas- 
sage, which was the source of their inspiration, was 
the Spirit, or the influence of ' Christ.' Thus the pas- 
sages contradict each other. Allow the Trinity in uni- 
ty, and you have no difhculty in calling the Spirit, the 
Spirit of the Father, and Spirit of the Son, or the Spir- 
it of either ; but if the Spirit be an influence, that in« 
fluence cannot be the influence of two persons, on God 
and the other a creature. 

3. The very important fact, that, in the vision of 
Isaiah, chapter vi, the Lord of Hosts, who spake un- 
to the prophet, is, in Acts xxviii. 25, said to be the 
Holy Ghost who spake to the prophet, while St. John 
declares that the glory which Isaiah saw was the glory of 
Christ, proves indisputably, that each of three Per- 
sons bears this august appellation ; it gives also the rea- 
son for the threefold repetition ' Holy, Holy, Holy,* 
and it exhibits the prophet and the very seraphs in deep 
and awful adoration before the Triune Lord of Hosts. 
Both the prophet and the seraphim were, therefore, 
worshippers of the Holy Ghost and of the Son, at the 
very time and by the very acts in which they worship- 
ped the Father, which proves that, as the three Persons 
received equal homage in a case which does not admit 
of the evasion of pretended superior and inferior wor- 
ship, they are equal in majesty, glory, and essence. 

4. " As in the tabernacle form of benediction, the 
Triune Jehovah is recognized as the source of all grace 
and peace to his creatures ; so in apostolic formula of 
blessing, ' The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the 
love of God, and the communion on the Holy Spirit, 
be with you all. Amen.' Here the personality of the 
three is kept distinct, and the prayer to the three is^ 
that Christians may have a common participation of the 
Holy Spirit, that is, doubtless, as he was promised by 



OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 



43 



our Lord to his disciples, as a Comforter, as the source 
of light and spiritual life, as the author of regeneration- 
Thus the Spirit is acknowledged^ equally with the 
Father and the Son, to be the source and the giver of 
the highest spiritual blessing, while this solemn ministe- 
rial benediction is, from its specific character, to be re- 
garded as an act of payer to each of the three Persons, 
and therefore is, at once, an acknowledgem.ent of the 
Divinity and Personality of each. 

The form of baptism next presents itself with de- 
monstrative evidence on the two points before us, the 
Personality and Divinity of the Holy Spirit. It is the 
form of COVENANT by v/hich the sacred Three become 
our ONE or only God, and we become his people. 
' Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them 
in THE name of the Father, and of the Son, and of 
the Holy Ghost.' In what manner is this text to be 
disposed of, if the Personality of the Holy Ghost is de- 
nied ? Is the form of baptism to be so understood as 
to imply that it is baptism in the name of one God, one 
creature, and one attribute 1 The grossness of this ab- 
surdity refutes it, and proves that here, at least, there 
can be no personification. If all the three, therefore, 
are persons, are we to make Christian baptism a bap- 
tism in the name of one God and two creatures ? This 
would be too near an approach to idolatry, or rather, it 
would be idolatry itself ; for, considering baptism as an 
act of dedication to God, the acceptance of God as our 
God, on our part, and the renunciation of all other dei- 
ties, and all other religions, v/hat could a Heathen con- 
vert conceive of the two creatures so distinguished from 
all other creatures in heaven and in earth, and so associa- 
ted w^ith God himself as to form together the one name, 
to which, by that act, he was devoted, and which he 
was henceforward to profess and honor, but that they 
were equally Divine unless special care were taken to in- 
struct him that but one of the three vv as God, and the 
two others but creatures ? But of this care, of this 



44 



PERSONALITY AND DIVINITY 



cautionary instruction, though so obviously necessary 
upon this theory, no single instance can be given in all 
the writings of the Apostles." — Watson. 

6. The Holy Spirit is the iMost High, and from rev- 
elation we learn, that the Most High is Jehovah, the in- 
communicable, self-existent, essence ; or (what is exactly 
the same) that Jehovah only is the Most High. Thou, 
whose name alone is Jehovah, ai^t the Most High 
over all the earth ; or, (as others render it) Thou, whose 
name is Jehovah, art alone the Most High over all 
the earth, Psa. Ixxxiii. 18. He is called Jehovah 
Most High, in Psa. vii. 18, and in other places : And, 
in Psa. xcii. 8, Jehovah the Most High /or evermore. 
There can be no doubt, therefore, that this term can only 
be applied to God, and be reciprocated as a name of his 
infinite and exalted nature. If, then, it can be applied, 
and is applied to the Holy Spirit, it will prove most de- 
monstrably, and ought to prove beyond all controver- 
sy, that he is tmly God or Jehovah, or a person in the 
self-existent essence so named. 

In Psalms Ixxviii. 17 — 19, the Israelites are said to 
have provoked the Most High. And they sinned yet 
more and more against him by provoking the Most High 
in the wilderness. And they tempted God in their 
heart by asking meat for their lust. Yea they speak 
against God ; they said can God furnish a table in the 
wilderness 

Now, the prophet Isaiah declares, that this provo- 
cation of the Israelites was against the Holy Spirit : 
They rebelled and vexed his Holy Spirit. Isa. Ixiii. 10. 
The martyr Stephen says, that they resisted the Holy 
Ghost. Acts viii. 51. And the apostle to the He- 
brews confirms both, by declaring, that it is the Holy 
Ghost, who saith, your fathers tempted Me, proved Me ; 
and saw imy worJcs forty years, Heb. iii. 7, 9. 

The Holy Spirit, therefore, in these last texts, is the 
Most High. Jehovah, stated by the Psalmist in the pre- 



OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 



45 



ceding text, and consequently, the true, infinite^ self- 
existent, and everlasting God. 

It may be noted, by the way, that the above passage 
in the Hebrews^ were there no other in the Bible to as- 
sert the essential divinity of the Holy Spirit^ is suffi- 
cient of itself for that purpose : for it asserts, that all 
the worJcSj which were done in the wilderness, before or 
in behalf of the Israelites, were the glorious operations 
of the Holy Ghost. They are also ascribed to Christ 
as one of the persons in the essence ; and no one v»ill 
deny, w^ho believes in revelation at all. that God. or the 
Father, was undoubtedly present : It follows, then, that 
all was performed by the Trinity in Unity, and that the 
whole was carried on by the poicer and according to the 
will of the three divine persons in the one undivided 
essence. Take it in any other view, and there will be 
different agents of different natures in this work of sal^ 
vation, and consequently more Gods than one ; because 
to these different agents are the names of God ascribed r. 
Or, there will be only one agent under different names, 
and so, consequently, Christ and the Holy Ghost with 
the Father are but one person, who suifered and bled, 
who departed yet came again as another comforter, yet 
not another but the same ; and thus the Scriptures vdll 
be an heap of contradictions, as well as IJasphemies 
against the divine nature. The adversaries, therefore, 
of the Christian doctrine of the trinity, who profess to 
receive the Bible, have only this refuge as adversaries : 
either to adopt polytheism and so become idolaters, or to 
plunge into the sink of Sahellianism, and so admit that 
the Father was crucified and suffered, putting a lie into 
Christ's mouth, when he declared My God. my God^ 
tvhy hast thou Forsaken me, A man must in fact re- 
ject the Scriptures altogether, as a divine revelation, if 
he deny the doctrine of a trinity, upon which, as upon 
one great and necessarv foundation, they entirely stand. 

Luke i. 25. The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee^ 
cmd the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: 



46 



PERSONALITY AND DIVINITY 



therefore also that holy things which shall he horn of 
thee, shall he called the Son or God. In the 32d 
verse, this Son of God is called the Son of the High- 
est, and. therefore, Christ, as to his human nature, is the 
Son of the Holy Ghost, by whose operation that human 
nature was formed in the virgin's womb. Hence it ap- 
pears, that God, Highest, and Holy Ghost, are terms 
of reciprocation, which could not be the case, unless the 
Holy Ghost were God Most High, But being God 
Most High, there is no blasphemy (as otherwise there 
certainly would be) in ascribing to hun all the peculiar 
titles of the Godhead : Let those take care of hlasphe- 
my against him (Matt. xii. 31,) who are bold enough to 
ascribe them to any other. 

John iii. 5. Except a man (says Christ) he horn of 
water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Icing- 
dmi of God, 

Luke vi. 35. But the same Christ tells his disciples, 
tliat they shall he the children of the Highest, and (in 
Luke XX. 36.) the children of God. 

The Spirit, therefore, is the Highest and God. 

Upon the proof of this important point, there is an 
end of that controversy, ^^-hich has employed so many 
tongues and pens, respecting the proper ohject of wor- 
ship. A Unitarian, w^ho dreams of his inferior deity, 
(as some of them do,) and all the endless absurdities 
which arise from that principle, may indeed be perplex- 
ed himself, and may perplex others, upon this point ; but 
the orthodox Christian knows, that there is one, and hut 
one object of worship, and that it is abominable idolatry 
to pay adoration to more. He also professes, that, as 
tlie three divine persons are only one essence, he cannot 
worship them as separate or different from that essence, 
and, consequently, that v/hether he address himself to 
each of the three persons, or to the three persons to- 
gether, his prayer or praise ascends to the whole essence, 
which is an undivided One, and his worship is of this 
Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, in all things," 



OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 



47 



and at all times. He is, therefore^ a worshipper of one 
God, and indeed can worship no more, for there is but 
one. 

T. The Holy Spuit is the Spirit of God. This is 
e^adent from those numerous passages of Scripture scat- 
tered through every part of the Bible in which he is so 
called ; but if the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God. then 
he must be God. To deny this is to assume, either that 
the Spirit of God is no more than an attribute, and, con- 
sequently, destitute of intelligence, an ignorant Holy 
Ghost, or that the Spirit of God is a created being, 
fi^om which it would follow that there was a time when 
God had no Spirit ; for if the Spirit was created, there 
must have been a time when it did not exist. Again, to 
talk of the Spirit of God, as a separate, inferior, and de- 
pendent being, is to assume, that God hath parts and 
divisions, and that, so far from having a simplicity of 
nature, he is a composition of superiority and inferiority, 
enduring a comparison with himself, which entirely 
takes away every idea of his perfection, infinitude and 
eternity. If the Spirit be separate from God, or is not 
God himself, then the title Spirit of God, so frequently 
given, is a dreadful mistake into which (it seems) God 
himself hath led us : and the being so called dwindles 
down at once into a mere minister of deity, an angel, or 
some other creature. It follows too, that something can 
be in the Godhead, which is not of the Godhead, and 
that God's Spirit, by which he made all things, may be 
like our breath and vanish into thin air. To such ab- 
surdity of blasphemy does some men's opinions neces- 
sarily lead them, if they are but extended to their natu- 
ral length without any straining or perversion. 

If likewise, the Spirit be inferior or dependent, he can 
neither be infinite nor eternal : which the Scriptures ex- 
pressly declare. Heb. ix. 14. Or, if he be infinite 
and eternal, he will be equal to God hmiself, and, con- 
sequently, must either be God, which we believe ; or 
there must be two Gods^ two eternal and infinite beings, 



48 



PERSONALITY AND DIVINITY 



which we deny, and which no man in his senses can 
maintain. The doctrine of two first principles is absurd 
in reason ; and by rehgion we are told, that the Lord 
om^ God is but one Lord. 

8. Another evidence of the Spirit's Divinity is that 
he is God. which will appear from the following passa- 
ges of Scripture : 

In Acts X. 19, :20, The Spirit said to Peter — go — 
I have sent them. 

But, in verse 33, it is said, that they were present 
before God, to hear all things that were commanded 
him of God. 

The Spirit, therefore, in one text, is called God in the 
other. 

By comparing John i. 13, with James i. 18, and Gal, 

iv. 6, we find that true believers are called the children 
of God, and hence have a right to cry, Abba, Father. 

But they are also said, necessarily and indispensably 
to be lorn of the Spirit, in John iii. 5, 8. 

Consequently, the Spirit must be God : Or, God's 
children have two spiritual births, of two different spir- 
itual beings, which is equally preposterous and unscrip- 
tural. 

Luke i. 68, TO. Acts iii. 18, 21. The Lord God 
of Israel — spaTce by the mouth of his holy prophets^ 
which have been since the world began. See also Heb. i. 1. 

2 Pet. i. 21. But, holy men of God spaJce as they 
IV ere moved by the Holy Ghost. 

The Holy Ghost, therefore, is God, and the Lord God 
of Israel.— X multitude of other Scriptures may be 
found to confirm the major and minor part of this argu- 
ment. 

Justification of a sinner is and must be an act of Dei- 
ty alone. It is expressly said, it is God that justifieth : 
And again, that He [Gob] just if eth the ungodly ; and 
that this God is one God, icho shall justify the circum^ 
cision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith. Rom. 
iii. 30; iv. 5, viii. 33. 



OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 



49 



But divine truth assures us, that the Spirit also justi- 
6eth. 1 Cor. vi. 11. Ye are justified- — ly the Spirit 
of our God, 

The Spirit, therefore, is God ; and a person, neces- 
. sarily, in the one God Jehovah. 

Peter said to Ananias, Why hath Satan filled thine 
heart to lie to the Holy Ghost — thou hast not lied un- 
to men, hut unto God. Acts v. 3, 4. Tliis Scripture 
contains a syllogism within itself. Thou hast not 
lied unto men but unto God because thou hast lied 
to the Holy Ghost, who is God. They, who take this 
Scripture in any other way, only puzzle themselves to 
make the apostle speak nonsense. Crellius, and others, 
have attempted to torture this text to confess a contra- 
diction of itself ; namely, that Ananias, in lying to the 
Holy Ghost, did not lie to God, but only to his mes- 
senger, an emanation, a virtue, a power, a quiddity. 
An absurdity not more unphilosophical, than unscriptu- 
ral and unworthy of his high titles and character ! But, 
if the Holy Ghost be not true and very God, where is 
the particular horror and aggravation of Ananias' crime. 
A crime which, if committed only against a creature, is 
also committed against the creatures every day. 

This Holy Spirit has dominion and power in the 
souls of men ; and, therefore, the grace of faith is 
styled one of his fruits, effects or operations. Gal. 
V. 22. 

But this very faith is, by the same apostle, said to 
be of the operation of God, Col. ii. 12. 

What, therefore, is the Spirit, but God ? 

From the same possession of power, the Spirit help- 
eth our infirmities ; for we know not what we should 
pray for as we ought, ^c. Rom. viii. 26. 

But in Phil. ii. 13, the apostle says, it is God which 
worJceth in you both to will and to bo of his good 
pleasure. 

Consequently the Spirit is God. 

Upon the same prmciple is this argument : Believers 
5 



50 



PERSONALITY AND DIVINITY 



are sealed hy the Spirit to the day of redemption, 
Eph. iv. 30. 

But the same apostle, speaking in behalf of believ- 
ers, says, that God hath sealed us. 2 Cor. i. 22. 
Therefore, the Spirit is God. 

Another operation of the Spirit is his witness in the 
soul by his heavenly grace. Heb. x. 15. The Holy 
Ghost is a witness to us, John v. 6. It is the Spirit 
that beareth witness, because the Spirit is Truth. 

But, in verse the 9th of the last mentioned chapter, 
this witness is called the witness of God, which he hath 
testified of his Son. 

Therefore, the witness of the Spirit, and the witness 
of God, are one ; because God and the Spirit are one. 

God is an unsearchable being to his creatures ; be- 
cause he is infinite, and they are finite altogether. 
There can be no measure without degrees of compari- 
son : And the divine nature must transcend all degrees, 
which infer more or less ; for there cannot be more or 
less, or any expression of quantity, in a being both un- 
limited and incomprehensible. Hence, it is said, his 
greatness (or vastness) is unsearchable. Psa. cxlv. 3. 

But the Spirit searcheth all Things, yea the deep 
things [the profound fullness] of God. 1 Cor. ii. 10. 

Can any words, therefore, more strongly argue, that 
the Spirit is equal with God ? And if equal, then ne- 
cessarily God himself 

The Holy Spirit is promised to rem-ain with the church 
in all ages of the world. There is no true ministry in 
it but by his ordination ; and no success from that min- 
istry but by his operation. Hence the Holy Ghost is 
said to make overseers to feed the flock. Acts xx. 28. 

But, in 1 Cor. xii. 28, we read that it is God, who 
hatli set in the church the various orders of ministers. 

And, therefore, it obviously concludes, that the Holy 
Ghost is God. 

It is repeatedly said, that God raised Christ from the 
dead. Acts ii. 24, et al. Very remarkable in Heb* 



OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 



51 



xlii. 20, 21. The God of Peace, that brought again 
fram the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of 
the sheep. maJce you perfect in every good ivorJc^ work- 
ing IN YOU that ivhich is ivell pleasing. ^'C, 

But it is also said that Christ was quickened hy the 
Spirit. 1 Pet. iii. IS. And the text in the Hebrews 
evidently relates to the ofSce-character of the Holy 
Ghost. 

It will follow, then, that the Spirit is God and the 
God of Peace. 

The Israehtes provoked the Lord God in the ivilder- 
ness, proved him. and saw his ivork, Comp. Psa. xcv. 
8, 9, with Exod. x^ii. 7, Numb. xiv. 22, et al. 

But the Holy Ghost saith — your fathers tempted ME^ 
&;c. Heb. iii. 7, Sec. 

The Holy Ghost, therefore, is Lord God. 

No creature can possibly be an object of worship ; 
and therefore no creature can possibly have a temple for 
the worship of itself. The pretence would be impious, 
and the service idolatrous. 

But believers are called in several places, the temples 
of the Holy Ghost, and the temples of God, indiscri- 
minately. There is not the least difference or distinc- 
tion, or even the remotest hint of a chfFerence or dis- 
tinction made between them. 1 Cor. iii. 16, 2 Cor. vi. 
16, he, 

God and the Holy Ghost, therefore, are essentially 
one as well as their temples ; and thus, distinctly in 
person, or conjunctively in essence, are the proper ohject 
of worship and adoration. 

There would be no end to the arguments which 
might be brought to prove this truth of the Spirit's di- 
vinity from his own Bible. Indeed, as the testimony of 
Jesus is the spirit of prophecy, so the testimony of the 
Holy Spirit is the power and principle of all revelation, 
and consequently, as such, the very life of all the Scrip- 
tures. Without Him, they never would have existed ; 
nor, without his continual agency, are they, more than 
any other book, a blessing in the world. 



52 PERSONALITY AND DIVINITY 

if 

It appears, then, from revelation, that the Holy Spirit 
is Lord and God ; that he is a divine Person, and not 
a mere unconscious instrument, or created quality ; 
and that, accordingly, He has ascriptions which can 
belong only to a person in the Godhead who sees, who 
knows, and who orders all things. We will conclude 
this point of the Spirits proper divinity by an argu- 
ment of a mixed nature, founded indeed, as to its datum, 
upon divine revelation, like all other spiritual truth : but 
more combined with human reason, which some people 
pretend to exalt against the wisdom of God, but which 

purged from its film," becomes its dutiful servant and 
willing advocate against the daring pretences of unrea- 
sonable men. 

God alone is the Creator of all things. This is a 
maxim which revelation has fully declared, and to 
which the lowest degree of reason must yield a ready 
assent. All the men, who have ever lived upon the 
earth, were never able to produce a neiv thing upon it, 
or to give life where it has once been taken away. The 
intellect of man can only rise to a discovery, more or 
less, of what exists ; and all his power is exercised only 
upon the matter and forms about him, to which he can 
add nothing of his own, nor from w^hich diminish aught 
by a reduction to nothing. This rule must hold with all 
ranks of being, except the Supreme. But we are in- 
formed, by the unerring wisdom of the Most High, that 
the Spirit, of whom we are treating, has made, has 
fashioned, does give life and being to the heavens, to the 
earth, and to men. This Spirit, therefore, is not, cannot 
be made himself : And if he be not a creature, he must 
be of the same substance with the Godhead of the Fa- 
ther, and the Son ; and, being of the same substance, 
has a right to the title of Creator, with them in the uni- 
ty of that substance. Now, as whatever is not God, 
must necessarily be a creature ; so v/hatever is not a crea- 
ture, that must be God. If the Spirit, therefore, be not 
of the same substance with the Godhead, he is unavoid* 



OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 



53 



ably a created substance : And if He be a created sub- 
stance, then nothing ever was. or ever could be created 
hy Him, But the word of the Hving God says positive- 
ly, that the heavens, and the earth, and man in particu- 
lar, were created by him : And. therefore, it will follow, 
upon the united assent of revelation and reason, that the 
Holy Sj)irit as Creator, is of one substance or essence 
with the Father and the Son. and consequently is with 
them, God over edL blessed for ever. 

Could it be admitted for a moment, that the Holy 
Ghost is not very God, nor a proper object of worship ; 
then the Christian church in all ages has been guilty 
of the most profane and abominable idolatry, and the 
hosts of heaven sing, Holy, Holy, Holy, for nought ; 
and (with honw be it spoken) God himself has failed 
in the performance of his promise, that his people should 
be led and guided into all Truth, and that against his 
church the gates of hell should never prevail. But, if 
it be impossible, that God should have so left his church, 
or that his faithfulness and truth should thus have failed ; 
it will follow, that the Holy Spirit has been rightly the 
object of their constant adoration, and that He himself 
has inspired them with his grace to render to him this 
tribute of their praise. 

'^.As a Divine Person, our regards are. therefore, 
justly due to him as the object of worship and trust, of 
prayer and blessing ; duties to which we are specially 
called, both by the general consideration of his Divini- 
ty, and by that aftectingly benevolent and attractive 
character under which he is presented to us in the whole 
Scriptures. In creation we see him moving upon the 
face of chaos, and reducing it to a beautiful order ; in 
providence, • renewing the face of the earth,' ^'garnish- 
ing the heavens,' and • giving life' to man. In grace 
we behold him expanding the prophetic scene to the 
vision of the seers of the Old Testament, and making 
a perfect revelation of the doctrine of Christ to the 

Apostles of the New. He ' reproves the world of sin,' 
5# 



54 



and works secret conviction of its evil and danger in the 
heart. He is ' the Spirit of grace and suppHcation ;^ 
the softened heart, the yielding will, all heavenly desires 
and tendencies are from him. He hastens to the trou- 
bled spirits of penitent men, who are led by his influence 
to Christ, and in whose hearts he has wrought faith, 
with the news of pardon, and 'bears witness' of their 
sonship ' with their spirit/ He aids their ' infirmities 
makes ' intercession for them ;' inspires thoughts of con- 
solation and feelings of peace ; plants and perfects in 
them whatsoever things are pure, and lovely, and hon- 
est, and of good report ; delights in his own work in the 
renewed heart ; dwells in the soul as in a temple ; and, 
after having rendered the spirit to God, without spot or 
wrinkle, or any such thing, sanctified and meet for hea- 
ven, finishes his benevolent and glorious work by rais- 
ing the bodies of saints in immortal life at the last day. 
So powerfully does ' the Spirit of glory and of God' 
claim our love, our praise, and our obedience ! In the 
forms of the churches of Christ, in all ages, he has« 
therefore, been associated with the Father and the Son, 
in equal glory and blessing ; and where such forms are 
not in use, this distinct recognition of the Spirit, so m.uch 
in danger of being neglected, ought, by ministers, to be 
most carefully and constantly made, in every gratulatory 
act of devotion, that so equally to each Person of the 
Eternal Trinity glory may be given ' in the church 
throughout all ages. Amen.' " 



CHAPTER IV. 

ON THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 

Having in the preceding argument established the 
Personality and Divinity of the Holy Spirit, we shall 
endeavor in this to prove the Supreme Divinity of Je- 



DlTlNlTy OF CHRIST. 



55 



sus Christ ; and if we succeed in this, then it will ne- 
cessarily follow either that the doctrine of the Trinity 
is true or that there is a plurality of Gods, which is con- 
trary to the whole tenor of Scripture ; for it is most 
expressly declared that there is but one God. On this 
point, the testimony of Scripture is express and unequi- 
vocal, *• The Lord our God is one Lord,*' Deut. vi. 4, 
^'The Lord he is God. there is none else besides him," 
Deut. iv. 35, ^' Thou art God aloneJ^ Psalms Ixxxvi. 
10, y^e know that an idol is nothing in the world, and 
there is none other God but one:^ 1 Cor. viii. 4, I am 
the Lord, there is none else, there is no God besides 
me," Isah. xlv. 5, And thou slialt know no God but 
me : for there is no Saviour besides me," Hosea xiii. 4, 

Hear, O Israel ; the Lord our God is one Lord," 
Mark xii. 29, Thus saith the Lord the king of Israel, 
and his Redeemer the Lord of hosts, I am the first, and 
I am the last, and besides me there is no God,"' Isah, 
xliv. 6. These declarations of sacred writers establish 
the position that there is but one God beyond the possibili- 
ty of contradiction. This point we wish the reader dis- 
tinctly to bear in mind : for it is the foundation and the 
key stone to the whole fabric of scriptural theolocry ; 
and every argument in favor of the Trinity flows from 
this principle of absolute unity in God — a principle 
which Lliitarians fancy to be inconsistent with the or- 
thodox doctrine. 

With this important point, that there is but one God, 
fixed in our minds, we shall now pass to examine the va- 
rious arguments which will be brought fonvard to prove 
the essential Divinity of Christ. 

The first argument which we shall advance in sup- 
port of this important point, will be founded upon his 
pre-existence. And, 

1. The pre-existence of our Saviour is clearly exhi- 
bited in the testimony of John the Baptist. John i. 15, 

He that cometh after me is preferred before me, for he 
was before T/ze;" or, as it is in the 30th verse, After 



56 



DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 



me cometh a man which is preferred before me^ for he 
was before me.'' Now if he was before John the Bap- 
tist, as these passages plainly show, he must have exist- 
ed before him. And if he existed before him, it is evi- 
dent that he existed before his incarnation : for the birth 
of John was prior to that of Jesus Christ. 

2. He came dov>-n from heaven ; consequently must 
have existed in heaven before his incarnation. St. 
John iii. 13, ?S~o man hath ascended up to heaven, 
but he that came down from heaven, even the son of 
man which is in heaven.'' He also styles himself the 
bread of life which came down from heaven." 

3. He came from God. John xiii. 3, *• Jesus know- 
ing that the Father had given all things into his hands, 
and that he was come from God, and w^ent to God." 
But if he come from God, he must have existed with 
him before he came from him, and therefore must have 
had an existence before his advent into this world. 

4. He was made tlesh." ' John i. 14. As the chil- 
dren are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself 
likewise took part of the same.*' ^- For verily, he took 
not on him the nature of Angels ; but he took on liim 
the seed of Abraham.'* Heb. xi. 14, 16. These ex- 
pressions plainly involve the idea of the pre-existence of 
Christ, who was made flesh, or, as the Apostle express- 
es it, ^* who took upon himself flesh and blood." 

5. When Jesus Christ came into the world, he came 
voluntarily. *• AVhen he cometh into the world, he saith 
sacrifice and offering thou wouldst not, but a body hast 
thou prepared for me ; Lo, I come to do thy will. O 
God," Heb. x. 5. 7. But if he came into the world, 
and took upon him a body, he must have existed before 
he came and toolc his body. 

6. He existed before Abraham. John viii. 5, Be- 
fore Abraham was I am.*" The ob\-ious sense of this 
passage is, as ^Ir. Watson remarks, Before Abraham 
was, or was born, I was in existence." Abraham, the 
patriarch, was the person spoken of : for the Jews hav- 



DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 



57 



ing said, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast 
thou seen Abraham our Lord," declares, whh his pecu- 
liarly solemn mode of introduction, \ erily, verily, I 
say unto you, Before Abraham was I am.'' I had 
priority of existence, together with a continuation of it 
to the end of time. Xor did the Jews mistake his mean- 
ing ; but beincr filled with indignation at so manifest a 
claim of Divinity, they took up stones to stone him." 
We must therefore conclude that our Saviour existed not 
only before John the Baptist, but also before the patri- 
arch Abraham : and consequently, that he did exist at 
least two thousand years before he was born. 

7. He created all things. John i. 3, All things 
were made by him : and without him was not any thing 
made that was made."' Again: Col. i. 15. 16. 17, 
^' Who is the image of the invisible God. the first bom 
of every creature : for by him were all thmgs created, 
that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and in- 
visible, whether they be thrones or dominions, or princi- 
palities or powers : all things were created by him and 
for him, and he is before all things, and by him all things 
consist." But if he was before all thinLi's. and if all 
things were created by him. it is evident that he did ex- 
ist before the creation, consequently before his incarna- 
tion, which did not take place until four thousand yeais 
after the creation. 

8. The last passage which I shall quote, may proper- 
ly, both from its dignity and explicitness, close the 
whole. John xvii. 5, And now, O Father, glorify 
thou me with thine ownseif. with the glory which I had 
with thee before the ivorJd icas,'' On this passage, Mr. 
Watson very appropriately remarks. Vvliatever this 
glory was, it was possessed by Christ before the world 
was, or as he afterwards expressed it. before the foun- 
dation of the world. That question is therefore not to 
be confounded with the main point v^-hich determines the 
pre-existence of our Lord : for if he was with the Fa- 
thei\ and had a glory with him before the world was^. 



58 



DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 



and of which he emptied himself when he became man^ 
then he had an existence, not only before his incarna- 
tion, but before the very foundation of the world." 
So conclusive is this passage in proving the pre-exist- 
ence of Christ, that as Dr. Harwood says, Were there 
no other intimation in the whole New Testament of the 
pre-existence of Christ, this single passage would irrefra- 
gibly demonstrate and establish it. Our Saviour, here in 
a solemn act of devotion, declares to the Almighty that 
he had a glory with him before the world was, and fer- 
vently supplicates that he would be graciously pleased 
to reinstate him in his former felicity. The language is 
plain and clear. Every word has great moment and 
emphasis : — Glorify thou me with that glory which I 
enjoyed in thy presence before the world was. Upon 
this single text I lay my finger. Here I posit my sys- 
tem. And if plain words be designedly employed to 
convey any determinate meaning ; if the modes of hu- 
man speech have any precision, I am convinced, that 
this plain declaration of our Lord, in an act of devotion^ 
exhibits a great and important truth, which can never be 
subverted or invalidated by any accurate and satisfacto- 
ry evidence." 

Having, therefore, proven, in opposition to the So- 
cinian hypothesis, from the plainest possible testimony ; 
testimony which no criticism, and no unlicensed com- 
ment, has been able to shake or obscure, that our Sa- 
viour had an existence before his incarnation, and even 
before the foundation of the world," in conclusion we 
would remark, that if Jesus Christ did exist previous to 
his incarnation, if he possessed any nature before his 
advent into this world, it must have been either a human 
angelic or Divine nature. That it was not a human na- 
ture, is evident from the fact that no one can believe in 
the pre-existence of human souls. That it was not an 
angelic nature, is also clear from Heb. ii. 16, ^^For 
verily he took not on him the nature of angels ; but he 
took on him the seed of Abraham." Also, from Heb. 



DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 



59 



i. 4, 5, Being made so much better than the angels, 
as he hath obtained a more excellent name than they. 
For unto which of the angels said he at any time thou 
art my Son ; this day have I begotten thee ?" If, then, 
he had a more excellent name, and was made better 
than any of the angels, and if he took not upon him 
their nature, it is clear that he was not on^ of them; 
and if, in his pre-existent state, he possessed neither a 
human nor angelic nature, it is evident that he must 
have been a Divine Being. 

II. Christ is the Jehovah of the Old Testament, the 
God worshiped by the Jews, Jer. iii. 31, 32. Behold 
the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new 
Covenant with the house of Israel and with the house 
of Judah ; not according to the Covenant that I made 
with their fathers in the day that I took them by the 
hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt.*' The 
Jehovah who led the Israelites out of Egypt and gave 
them their law, is here plainly introduced as the author 
of the new Covenant. This new Covenant, according 
to the argument of the Apostle Paul in the 8th chapter 
of Hebrews, is the Gospel dispensation, of which Christ 
is evidently the author ; consequently he must be the 
Jehovah of the Old Testament, the God of the Jewish 
people, who led them out of the land of Egypt, and gave 
them their law, amid the most awful displays of Divine 
Majesty on the trembling summit of Sinai, where, as 
well as in after ages, he received the worship of the 
children of Israel ; for,^according to the above passage, 
tlie same person is author of both the Old and New 
Covenant. 

The same doctrine is taught, with equal clearness, in 
that celebrated prediction recorded in IMalachi iii. 1. 

'-Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall 
prepare my way before me ; and the Lord whom ye 
seek shall suddenly come to his temple, even the mes- 
senger of the covenant whom ye dehght in ; behold he 
shall come, saith the Lord of Hosts." 



60 



DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 



The characters under which the person who is the 
subject of this prophecy is described, are, the Lord, a 
sovereign mler, the owner of the temple, and therefore 
a Divine prince or governor, he ^shall come to Ms tem- 
ple,^ * The temple,' says Bishop Horsley, 4n the wri- 
tings of a Jewish prophet, cannot be otherwise under- 
stood, according to the literal meaning, than of the tem- 
ple at Jerusalem. Of this temple, therefore, the person 
to come is expressly called the Lord. The lord of any 
temple, in the language of all writers, and in the natu- 
ral meaning of the phrase, is the divinity to whose wor- 
ship it is consecrated. To no other divinity was the 
temple of Jerusalem consecrated, than the true and 
everlasting God, the Lord Jehovah, the Maker of heav- 
en and earth. Here, then, we have the express testi- 
mony of 3Ialachi, that the Christ, the Deliverer, whose 
coming he announces, was no other than the Jehovah 
of the Old Testament. Jehovah had delivered the 
Israelites from the Egyptian bondage ; and the same 
Jehovah was to come in person to his temple, to effect 
the greater and more general deliverance of which the 
former was but an imperfect type.' 

''•r>ow. this prophecy is expressly applied to Christ 
by St. Mark. * The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus 
Christ, the Son of God, as it is ivritteii, Behold I send 
my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy 
way before thee.' It follows from this, that Jesus is the 
Lord, the Lord of the Temple, the ^Messenger of the 
Covenant mentioned in the prophecy; and bearing these 
exact characters of the Jehovah of the Old Testament, 
who was the ^a*;?^ of the Jews : whose temple was his, 
because he resided in it, and so was called ^the house of 
the Lord and who was ^ the Messenger^ of the Cove- 
nant ; the identity of the person cannot be mistaken. 
One coincidence is singularly striking. Jehovah had 
his residence in the Jewish tabernacle and temple, and 
took possession, or came suddenly to both, at their ded- 
ication, and filled them with his glory. On one occasion, 



DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 



61 



Jesus himself, though m a state of humihation, comes in 
pubhc procession to the temple at Jerusalem, and calls 
it 'his own;' thus at once declaring that he was the 
ancient and rightful Lord of the Temple, and appropri- 
ating to himself this eminent prophecy. Bishop Hors- 
ley has introduced this circumstance in his usual stri- 
kino^ and convincinu" manner. 

'A third time Jesus came still more remarkably as 
the Lord to his temple, when he came up from Galilee 
to celebrate the last passover. and made that public en- 
try at Jemsalem which is described by all the EvaDD:e- 
lists. It will hd necessary to enlarge upon the particu- 
lars of this interesting story : for the right understand- 
ing of our Saviour's conduct upon this occasion depends 
so much upon seeing certain leading circumstances in a 
proper light, — upon a recollection of ancient prophe- 
cies, and an attention to the customs of the Jewish peo- 
ple, — that I am apt to suspect, few now-a-days discern 
in this extraordinary transaction what was clearly seen 
in it at the time by our Lord's disciples, and in some 
measure understood by his enemies. I shah present 
you with an orderly detail of the story, and comment 
upon the particulars as they arise : and I doubt not but 
that by God's assistance I shall teach you to perceive 
in this public entry of Jesus of Nazareth, (if you have 
not perceived it before.) a conspicuous advent of the 
great Jehovah into his temple, Jesus, on his last jour- 
ney from Galilee to Jerusalem, stops at the foot of 
Mount Olivet, and sends two of his disciples to a neigh- 
bormg village to provide an ass's colt to convey him 
from that place to the city, distant not more than half 
a mile. The colt is brought, and Jesus is seated upon 
it. This first circumstance must be well considered ; it 
is the key to the whole mystery of the story. ^Vhat 
could be his meaning in choosing this singular convey- 
ance ? It could not be that the fatigue of the short 
journey which remained was likely to be too much for 
him on foot ; and that no better animal was to be procu- 
6 



62 



DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 



red. Nor was the ass in these days (though it had been 
in earUer ages) an animal in high esteem in the East, . . 
used for travehng or for state by persons of the first ■ 
condition^ — that this conveyance should be chosen for 
the grandeur or propriety of the appearance. Strange 
as it may seem, the coming to Jerusalem upon an ass's 
colt was one of the prophetical characters of the Mes- 
siah ; and the great singularity of it had perhaps been 
the reason that this character had been more generally 
attended to than any other ; so that there was no Jew 
who was not apprised that the Messiah w^as to come to 
the holy city in that manner. • Rejoice greatly, O 
daughter of Zion ! shout, O dauo-hter of Jerusalem !' 
saith Zechariah ; ' Behold thy King cometh unto thee ! 
He is just, and having salvation ; lowly, and riding up- ' ? 
on an ass, even a colt, the foal of an ass !' And this 
prophecy the Jews never understood of any other per- 
son than the Messiah. Jesus, therefore, by seating ? ; 
himself upon the ass's colt in order to go to Jerusalem, 
without any possible inducement either of grandeur or ■ 
convenience, openly declared himself to be that King 
who was to come, and at whose coming in that manner - 
Zion was to rejoice. And so the disciples, if we may 
judge fi-om v%'hat immediately followed, understood this v.' 
proceeding ; for no sooner did they see their master seat- 
ed on the colt, than they broke out into transports of 
the highest joy, as if in this great sight they had the foil 
contentment of their utmost wishes ; conceiving, as it 
should seem, the sanguine hope that the kingdom was 
this instant to be restored to Israel. They strewed the 
way which Jesus was to pass with the green branches 
of the trees which grew beside it ; a mark of honor, in 
the East, never paid but to the greatest emperors on oc- 
casions of the highest pomp. They proclaimed him 
the long expected heir of Da\dd's throne, — the Blessed 
One coming in the name of the Lord ; that is, in the 
language of Malachi, the Messenger of the Covenant : 
and they rent the skies with the exulting acclamation 



DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 



63 



of ' Hosanna in the highest !' On their way to Jerusa- 
lem, they are met by a great muhitude from the city, 
whom the tidings had no sooner reached than they ran 
out in eager joy to join his triumph. When they reach- 
ed Jerusalem, ^ the whole city/ says the blessed Evan- 
gelist, ' was moved.' Here recollect, that it was now 
the season of the passover. The passover was the high- 
est festival of the Jewish nation, the anniversary of that 
memorable night when Jehovah led his armies out of 
Egypt with a high hand and an extended arm, — ^ a 
night much to be remembered to the Lord of the chil- 
dren of Israel in their generations and much indeed it 
was remembered. The devout Jews flocked at this sea- 
son to Jerusalem, not only from every corner of Judea, 
but from the remotest countries whither God had scatter- 
ed them ; and the numbers of the strangers that were 
annually collected in Jerusalem during this festival are 
beyond imagination. These strangers, who living at a 
distance knew little of what had been passing in Judea 
since their last visit, were they who were moved (as well 
they might be) with wonder and astonishment, when 
Jesus, so humble in his equipage, so honored in his nu- 
merous attendants, appeared within the city gates ; and 
every one asks his neighbor, ' Who is this ?' It was re- 
plied by some of the natives of Judea, — but, as I con- 
ceive, by none of the disciples ; for any of them at this 
time would have given another answer, — ^it was replied, 
^ This is the Nazarene, the great prophet from Galilee.' 
•. Throuo;h the throno; of these astonished SDCCtators the 
^ procession passed by the public streets of Jerusalem to 
the temple, where immediately the sacred porticoes re- 
sound with the continued hosannas of the multitudes. 
The chief priests and scribes are astonished and alarm- 
ed : they request Jesus himself to silence his followers. 
Jesus, in the early part of his ministry, had always 
been cautious of any public display of personal conse- 
quence ; lest the malice of his enemies should be too 
soon provoked, or the unad^dsed zeal of his friends 



64 



DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 



should raise civil commotions. But now that his work 
on earth was finished in all but the last painful part of 
it, — now that he had firmly laid the foundations of God's 
kingdom in the hearts of his disciples, — now that the 
Apostles were prepared and instructed for their office, 
— ^now that the days of vengeance on the Jewish nation 
were at hand, and it mattered not how soon they should 
incur the displeasure of the Romans their masters, — - 
Jesus lays aside a reserve which could be no longer use- 
ful ; and, instead of checking the zeal of his followers, 
he gives a new alarm to the chief priests and scribes, by 
a direct and firm assertion of his right to the honors that 
were so largely shown to him. ' If these,' says he, 
^ were silent, the stones of this building would be endu- 
ed with a voice to proclaim my titles :' and then, as on 
a former occasion, he drove out the traders ; but with a 
higher tone of authority, calling it his own house, and 
saying, ' My house is the house of prayer, but ye have 
made it a den of thieves.' You have now the story, 
in all its circumstances, faithfully collected from the four 
Evangelists ; nothing exaggerated, but set in order, and 
perhaps somewhat illustrated by an application of old 
prophecies, and recollection of Jewish customs. Judge 
for yourselves whether this was not an advent of the 
Lord Jehovah taking personal possession of his tem- 
ple.' " 

The next passage to which we shall call the atten- 
tion of the reader, in order to prove that Jesus Christ is 
the Jehovah of the Old Testament, is Isaiah xl. 3. 

' The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness,. 
Prepare ye the way of the Lord, (Jehovah,) make 
straight in the desert a highway for our God. Every 
valley shall be exalted, and every mountain shall be 
made low ; and the crooked shall be made straight, and 
the rough places plain, and the glory of the Lord (Je- 
hovah) shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it to- 
gether.' This being spoken of him of whom John the 
Baptist was to be the forerunner ; and the application 



DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 



65 



having been afterward expressly made by the Baptist to 
our Lord, it is evident that he is the person ' to whom 
the prophet attributes the incommunicable name of Je- 
hovah, and styles him ' our God.' ' 

There are, however, a few passages which, in a still 
more distinct manner than any which have been intro- 
duced, except that from the prophecy of Jeremiah, iden- 
tify Jesus Christ with the Jehovah in the Patriarchal and 
Levitical dispensations ; and a brief consideration of 
them will leave this important point completely estab- 
lished. 

^* Let it then be recollected, that he who dwelt in the 
Jewish tabernacle, between the Cherubims, was Jeho- 
vah. In Psalm Ixviii, which was written on the remo- 
val of the ark to Mount Zion, he is expressly addressed. 
^ This is the hill which God desireth to dwell in and 
again, ' They have seen thy goings, O God, my King, 
in thy sanctuary.' But the Apostle Paul, Eph. iv. 8, 
applies this Psalm to Christ, and considers this very 
ascent of Jehovah to Mount Zion as a prophetic type 
of the ascent of Jesus to the celestial Zion. ' Where- 
fore he saith, when he ascended on high he led captivi- 
ty captive,' &:c. The conclusion, therefore, is, that the 
Jehovah who is addressed in the Psalm, and Christ, are 
the same person. This is marked with equal strength 
in verse 29. The Psalm, let it be observed, is deter- 
mined by apostolical authority to be a prophecy of 
Christ, as indeed its temis intimate ; and with reference 
to the future conquests of Messiah, the prophet ex- 
claims, ^ Because of thy temple at Jerusalem shall kings 
bring presents unto thee.' The future Christ is spoken 
of as one having then a temple at Jerusalem. 

It was the glory of Jehovah the resident God of 
the Temple, which Isaiah saw in the vision recorded in 
the 6th chapter of his prophecy : but the Evangelist 
John expressly declares, that on that occasion the pro- 
phet saw the glory of Christ and spake of him. John 
6# 



66 



DIVINITY OF CHRISl*. 



xii. 37 — 41. Christ therefore was the Lord of Hosts 
whose glory filled the Temple. 

St. Peter calls the Spirit of Jehovah, by which the 
prophets ^prophesied of the grace that should come, the 
Spirit of Christ.^ He also informs us that ' Christ was 
put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit, 
by which also he went and preached unto the spirits in 
prison, which some time were disobedient when once 
the long suffering of God waited in the days of Noah^ 
while the ark was preparing.' Now, whatever may be 
the full meaning of this difficult passage, Christ is clear- 
ly represented as preaching by his Spirit in the days of 
Noah ; that is, inspiring Noah to preach. Let this be 
collated with the declaration of Jehovah before the flood, 
^My Spirit shall not always strive with man, for that 
he is flesh, yet his days shall be a hundred and twenty 
years,' during which period of delay and long-suffering, 
Noah was made by him, from whom alone inspiration can 
come, a preacher of righteousness ; and it is clear, that 
Christ and the Jehovah of the antediluvian world, are 
supposed by St. Peter to have been the same person. 
In the 11th chapter of the Hebrews, Moses is said to 
have esteemed the reproach of Christ, greater riches 
than the treasures of Egypt ; a passage of easy inter- 
pretation, when it is admitted that the Jehovah of the 
Israelites, whose name and worship Moses professed, and 
Christ, were the same person. For this worship he 
was reproached by the Egyptians, who preferred their 
own idolatry, and treated, as all apostates do, the true 
religion, the pure worship of former ages from which 
they had departed, with contempt. To be reproached 
for the sake of Jehovah, and to be reproached for Christ, 
were convertible phrases with the Apostle, because he 
considered Jehovah and Christ to be the same person. 

' In St. Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians, we 
read, 'Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them 
(that is, the Jews in the wilderness) also tempted, and 
were destroyed by serpents/ x. 9. The pronoun him 



DIVINITY OF CHRIST, 



61 



must be understood after ' tempted/ and it is found in 
some MSS., though not sufficiently numerous to war- 
rant its insertion in the text. It is, however, necessari- 
ly imphed, and refers to Christ just before mentioned. 
The Jews in the wilderness here are said to have tempt- 
ed some person ; and to understand by that person any 
other than Christ, who is just before named, is against 
all grammar, which never allows without absolute neces- 
sity any other accusative to be understood by the verb 
than that of some person or thing before mentioned in 
the same sentence. The conjunction also establishes 
this interpretation beyond doubt : • Neither let us tempt 
Christ as some of them also tempted' — tempted 
whom ? The answer clearly is, as they also tempted 
Christ, If Christ then was the person whom the Is- 
raelites tempted in the wilderness, he unavoidably be- 
comes the Jehovah of the Old Testament.' 

This is rendered the more striking, when the pas- 
sage to which the Apostle refers is given at length. 
' Ye shall not tempt the Lord your God, as ye tempt- 
ed him in ^lassah.' Now vvhat could lead the Apostle 
to substitute Christ, in the place of the Lord your God ? 
' Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also 
tempted' Christ, for that is the accusative which must 
be supplied. Nothing certainly but that the idea was 
familiar to him, that Christ, and the Jehovah, who con- 
ducted and governed the Israelites, were the same per- 
son. 

" These views are confirmed by the testlmionies of 
the early Fathers, to whom the opinions of the Apos- 
tles, on this subject, would naturally descend. 

'^'Justin Martyr has delivered his sentiments very 
freely upon the Divine appearances. ^Our Christ,^ he 
says, ' conversed with Moses cut of the bush, in the 
appearance of fire. And IVIoses received great strength 
from Christ, who spake to him in the appearance of 
fire.' Again : — ' He formerly appeared in the form of 
fire, and without a human shape, to Moses and the oth- 



68 



DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 



er prophets : but now — being made a man of the Vir- 
gin/ he. 

" Irenseus says^ ^ The Scripture is full of the Son of 
God's appearing : sometimes to talk and eat with Abra- 
ham, at other times to instruct Noah about the mea- 
sures of the ark ; at another time to seek Adam ; at 
another time to bring down judgment upon Sodom ; then 
again, to direct Jacob in the way; and again to con- 
verse with Moses out of the bush.' 

Tertullian says, ^ It was the Son who judged men 
from the beginning, destroying that lofty tower, and 
confounding their languages, punishing the whole world 
with a flood of waters, and raining fire and brimstone 
upon Sodom and Gomorrah, the Lord pouring it down 
from the Lord : for he always descended to hold con- 
verse with men, from Adam even to the patriarchs and 
prophets, in visions, in dreams, in mirrors, in dark sen- 
tences, always preparing his way from the beginning : 
neither was it possible, that the God who conversed with 
men upon earth, could be any other than that Word 
which was to be made flesh.' 

Clemens Alexandrinus says, ^ Christ gave the world 
the law of nature, and the written law of Moses.' 

Origen says, ' My Lord Jesus Christ descended to 
the earth more than once. He came down to Esaias, 
to Moses, and to every one of the prophets.' Again : 
' That our blessed Saviour did sometimes become as 
an angel, we may be induced to believe, if we consider 
the appearances and speeches of angels, who in some 
texts have said, ' I am the God of Abraham, and the 
God of Isaac,' ' &c." 

We think we have now proved, to the satisfaction of 
every unprejudiced person, both from the Scriptures of 
Divine truth and from the opinions of the early Chris- 
tian writers ; writers who lived before the council of 
Nice, at which time Unitarians contend the doctrine of 
the Trinity had its origin, that Jesus Christ is the Jeho- 
vah of the Old Testament, who claimed and received 



DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 



69 



the worship of the Jewish nation, from which it must 
follow either that he is the eternal self-existent first 
cause of all things, or that the Jewish as well as the 
Christian Church have always worshipped a creature in- 
stead of the Creator, and that the Supreme governor of 
the universe has never yet revealed himself to the chil- 
dren of men. 

III. The titles of Christ prove his Divinity, for they 
are such as can designate a Divine Being, and a Divine 
Being only. Consequently, our Saviour, to whom 
these titles are by inspired authority ascribed, must be 
Divine, or otherwise the word of Truth must stand 
charged with practising a direct deception upon man- 
kind, and that in a fundamental article of religion. 
This is our argument, and we proceed to the illustration. 

The first of these titles which calls for our attention 
15 that of Jehovah. So many instances of this being 
applied to Christ were given in the preceding argu- 
ment that it is unnecessary to repeat them ; and indeed 
the fact, that the name Jehovah is applied to the Mes- 
siah in many passages of the Old Testament, is admit- 
ted by the manner in which the argument, deduced from 
this fact, is objected to by our opponents. The Jew- 
ish Cabbalists," says Dr. Priestly, " might easily ad- 
mit that the Messiah might be called Jehovah, without 
supposing that he was any thing more than a man, who 
had no existence before his birth." — Several things in 
the Scriptures are called by the name of Jehovah ; as, 
Jerusalem is called Jehovah our Righteousness." They 
are not, however, the Jewish interpreters only who give 
the name Jehovah to INIessiah ; but the inspired Pro- 
phets themselves, in passages which, by the equally in- 
spired Evangehsts and Apostles, are applied to Jesus. 
No instance can be given in which any being, acknowl- 
edged by all to be a created being, is called Jehovah in 
the Scriptures, or was so called among the Jews. The 
peculiar sacredness attached to this name among them 
was a sufficient guard against such an application of it 



70 



DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 



in their common language ; and as for the Scriptures, 
they expUcitlj represent it as pecuhar to Divinity itself, 

I am Jehovah, that is ray name, and my glory will I 
not give to another, " I am Jehovah, and there is 
none else, there is no God besides meJ^ " Thoii, whose 
NAME ALONE is Jehovah, aj't the most high, above 
all the earth J ^ The peculiarity of the name is often 
strongly stated by Jewish commentators, which suffi- 
ciently refutes Dr. Priestley, who affirms that they could 
not, on that account, conclude the Messiah to be more 
than a man. Kimschi paraphrases Isaiah xliii. 8 : Je- 
hovah, that is my name " — that name is proper to 
me." On Hosea xii. 5: Jehovah his memorial," he 
3ays, In the name EI and Elohim, he communicates 
with others; but, in this name, he communicates with 
none." Aben Ezra, on Exodus iii. 14, proves, at 
length, that this name is proper to God. 

It is, surely, a miserable pretence to allege, that this 
name is sometimes given to places. It is so ; but only 
in comparison with some other word, and not, surely, as 
indicative of any quality in the places themselves, but 
as memorials of the acts and goodness of Jehovah 
himself, as manifested in those localities. So '^'Jeho- 
vah-Jireh, in the mount of the Lord it shall be seen," 
or, the Lord will see or provide," referred to his in- 
terposition to save Isaac, and, probably, to the provision 
of the future sacrifice of Christ. The same observation 
may be made as to Jehovah Nissi, Jehovah Shallum, 
&c. : they are names not descriptive of places, hut of 
events connected with them, which m.arked the interpo- 
sition and character of God himself. 

Nor is it tme, that, in Jeremiah xxxiii. 16, Jerusalem 
is called Jehovah our Righteousness." The parallel 
passage in the same book, chap, xxiii. 5, 6, sufficiently 
shows that this is not the name of Jerusalem', but the name 
of The Branch." Much criticism has been bestowed 
upon these passages to establish the point, whether the 
clause ought to be rendered, ^^'And this is the name by 



DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 



71 



which the Lord shall call him, our Righteousness or^ 
this is the name by which he shall be called, the Lord 
our Righteousness which last has, I think, been de- 
cisively established ; but he would be a very exception- 
able critic who should conclude either of them to be an 
appellative, not of Messiah, but of Jerusalem, contrary 
both to the scope of the passage and the literal render- 
ing of the words, words capable of somewhat dif- 
ferent constructions, but in no case capable of being 
applied either to the people of Judah, or to the city of 
Jerusalem. 

The force of the argument from the application of 
the name of Jehovah to Messiah may be thus stated : 

Whatever belongs to Messiah, that may and must be 
attributed to Jesus, as being the true and only Christ ; 
and accordingly we have seen, that the Evangelists and 
Apostles apply those passages to our Lord, in which the 
Messiah is unequivocally called Jehovah. But this is 
the peculiar and appropriate name of God ; that name 
by which he is distinguished from all other beings, and 
which imports perfections so high and appropriate to the 
only living and true God, such as self-existence and 
eternity, that it can, in truth, be a descriptive appella- 
tion of no other being. It is, however, soleranly and 
repeatedly given to the Messiah ; and, unless we can 
suppose Scripture to contradict itS3lf, by making that 
a peculiar name which is not pecuhar to him, and to 
establish an inducement to that idolatry which it so 
sternly condemns, and an excuse for it, then this adora- 
ble name itself declares the absolute Divinitv of him 
who is invested with it, and is to him, as well as to the 
Father, a name of revelation, a name descriptive of the 
attributes which can pertain only to essential Godhead. 

2. This conclusion is corroborated by the constant 
use of the title " Lord " as an appellation of Jesus, the 
Messiah, when manifest in the flesh. His disciples not 
only applied to him those passages of the Old Testa- 
mentj in which the Messiah is called Jehovah, but 



72 



DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 



salute and worship him by a title which is of precisely 
the same original import, and which is, therefore, to be 
considered in many places of the Septuagint and the 
New Testament, an exact translation of the august 
name Jehovah, and fully equivalent to it in its import. 
It is allowed, that it is also used as the translation of 
other names of God, which import simply dominion, 
and that it is applied also to merely human masters and 
rulers. It is not, therefore, like the Jehovah of the Old 
Testament, an incommunicable name, but, in its highest 
sense, it is universally allowed to belong to God ; and, 
if, in this highest sense, it is applied to Christ, then is 
the argument valid, that in the sacred writers, whether 
used to express the self and independent existence of 
him who bears it, or that dominion which, from it nature 
and circumstances, must be Divine, it contains a no- 
tion of true and absolute Divinity. 

The first proof of this is, that, both in the Septuagint 
and by the writers of the New Testament, it is the term 
by which the name Jehovah is translated, and, in all 
passages in which Messias is called by that peculiar title 
of Divinity, we have this authority to apply it, in its full 
and highest signification, to Jesus Christ, who is himself 
that Messias. For this reason, and also because, as 
men inspired, they were directed to fit and proper terms, 
the writers of the New Testament apply this appella- 
tion to their Master, when they quote these prophetic 
passages as fulfilled in him. They found it used in the 
Greek version of the Old Testament, in its highest pos- 
sible import, as a rendering of Jehovah. Had they 
tliought Jesus less than God, they ought to have avoid- 
ed, and must have avoided, giving to him a title which 
would mislead their readers ; or else have intimated, that 
they did not use it in its highest sense as a title of Di- 
vinity, but in its very lowest, as a term of merely hu- 
man courtesy, or, at best, of human dominion. But we 
have no such intimation ; and, if they wrote under the 
inspiration of the Spirit of Truth, it follows, that they 



DIVINITY OF CHRIST, 



73 



used it as being understood to be fully equivalent to the 
title Jehovah itself. This their quotations will shovy% 
The evangelist 'Matthew^ (iii. 3) quotes and applies to 
Christ the celebrated prophecy of Isaiah xl. 3 : For 
this is he that was spoken of by the Prophet Esaias, 
sayings The voice of one crying in the wilderness. Pre- 
pare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight." 
The other evano^elists make the same application of it. 
representing John as the herald of Jesus, the Jeho- 
vah" of the Prophet. It was, therefore, in the highest 
possible sense that they used the term, because they 
used it as fully equivalent to Jehovah. So again, in 
Luke i. 16, 17 : And many of the children of Israel 
shall he turn to the Lord their God, and he shall o-o 
before him in the spirit and power of Ellas." Him." 
unquestionably refers to ^-'the Lord their God;" and 
we have here a proof that Christ bears that emment 
title of Di\dnity, so frequent in the Old Testament, 
^' the Lord God," Jehovah Aleim ; and also that Lord 
answered, in the view of an inspired writer, to the name 
Jehovah. On this point the Apostle Paul also adds his 
testimony, Romans x. 13, Whosoever shall call upon 
the name of the Lord shall be saved :" which is quoted 
from Joel ii. 32, •* Whosoever shall call on the name of 
Jehovah shall be delivered." Other passages might 
be added, but the argument does not rest upon their 
number; these are so explicit, that they are amply suf- 
ficient to establish the important conclusion, that, in 
whatever senses the »term ^'Lord'^ may be used, and 
though the writers of the New Testament, like our- 
selves, use it occasionally in a lower sense, yet they use 
it also in its highest possible sense, and in its loftiest sig- 
nification, when they intend it to be understood as 
equivalent to Jehovah, and, in that sense, they apply it 
to Christ. 

But, even when the title ^- Lord" is not employed 
to render the name Jehovah, in passages quoted from 
the Old Testament, but is used as the common appella- 
7 



74 DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 

tion of Christ, after his resurrection, the disciples so 
connect it with other terms, and with circumstances 
which so clearly imply Divinity, that it cannot reason- 
ably be made a question but that they themselves con- 
sidered it as a Divine title, and intended that it should 
be so understood by their readers. In that sense they 
applied it to the Father, and it is clear, that they did 
not use it in a low^er sense when they gave it to the Son. 
It is put absolutely, and by way of eminence^ " the 
Lord." It is joined with God so in the passage 
above quoted from St. Luke, where Christ is called the 
Lord God ; and when Thomas, in an act of adoration, 
calls him '^My Lord and my God." When it is used 
to express dominion, that dominion is represented as ab- 
solute and universal, and, therefore, divine, '^He is 
Lord of alL^^ King of Icings and Lord of lords,''' 

Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the founda- 
tion of the earth ; and the heavens are the works of thy 
hands. They shall perish ; but thou remainest : and 
they all shall wax old, as doth a garment, and as a ves- 
ture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed ; 
but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail." 

Thus, then, the titles of Jehovah" and ''Lord" 
both prove the Divinity of our Saviour ; for," as it is 
remarked by Dr. Waterland, " if Jehovah signify the 
eternal, immutable God, it is manifest that the name is 
incommunicable, since there is but one God ; and, if the 
name be incommunicahle, then Jehovah can signify no- 
thing but that one God, to whom, and to whom only, it 
is applied. And if both these parts be true, and if it 
be true, likewise, that this name is applied to Christ, the 
consequence is irresistible, that Christ is the same one 
God, not the same person, with the Father, to whom 
also the name Jehovah is attributed, but the same sub- 
stance, the same being, in a word, the same Jehovah^ 
thus revealed to be more persons than one." 

2. Jesus Christ is called God : this the adversaries of 
his Divinity are obliged to confess, and this confession 



DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 



75 



admits, that the letter of Scripture is, therefore, in favor 
of orthodox opinions. It is, indeed, said, that the term 
God^ Kke the term Lord, is used in an inferior sense ; 
but nothing is gained by this ; nothing is, on that ac- 
count, proved against the Deity of Christ ; for it must 
still be allowed, that it is a term used in Scripture to ex- 
press the Divine Nature, and that it is so used generally. 
The question, therefore, is only limited to this, whether 
our Lord is called God, in the highest sense of that ap- 
pellation. This might, indeed, be argued from those 
passages in the Old Testament in which the title is given 
to the Jehovah, the Lord God" of the Old Testa- 
ment ; but this having been anticipated, I confine my- 
self chiefly to the Evangelists and Apostles. 

Matthew i. 23 : Now all this was done, that it might 
be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the pro- 
phet, saying. Behold a virgin shall be with child and 
shall bring forth a Son, and they shall call his name 
Emmanuel, which being interpreted, is, God with us." 
This is a portion of Scripture which the Socinians, in 
their Improved Version," have printed in italics, as of 

doubtful authority," though, with the same breath, 
they allow that it is found in all the manuscripts and 
versions which are now extant." The ground, there- 
fore, on which they have rested their objection is con- 
fessedly narrow and doubtful, and frail as it is, it has 
been entirely taken from them, and the authority of this 
scripture fully established. The reason of an attempt, 
at once so bold and futile, to expunge this passage, and 
the following part of St. Matthew's history which is 
connected with it, may be found in the explicitness of 
the testimony which it bears to our Lord's Divinity, and 
which no criticism could evade. The prophecy which 
is quoted by the Evangelist has its difficulties ; but they 
do not in the least aftect the argument. Whether we 
can explain Isaiah or not, that is, whether we can show 
in what manner the prophecy had a primary accomplish- 
ment in the prophet's day or not, St. Matthew is suffi- 



76 



DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 



ciently intelligible. He tells us, that the words spoken 
by the prophet were spoken of Christ ; and that his 
miraculous conception took place, " that," in order that^ 
they might be fulfilled a mode of expression so 
strong, that even those who allow the prophets to be 
quoted sometimes by way of accommodation by the 
writers of the New Testament, except this instance, as 
having manifestly, from the terms used, the form of an 
argument, and not of a mere allusion. Farther, says 
the sacred historian, and they shall call his name Em- 
manuel that is, according to the idiom of Scripture, 
where any thing is said to be called what it in reality is, 
he shall be ^'^ Emmanuel/^ and the interpretation is ad- 
ded, God with us^ 

It is, indeed, objected, that the Divinity of Christ, 
can no more be argued from this title of Emmanuel than 
the Divinity of Eli, whose name signifies my God, or 
of Elihu, which imports my God himself; but it is to 
be remarked, that by these names such individuals were 
commonly and constantly known among those with 
whom they lived. But Immanuel was not the person- 
al name of our Lord, he was not so called by his friends 
and countrymen familiarly : the personal name which 
he received was Jesus, by Divine direction, and by this 
he was known to the world. It follows, therefore, that 
Immanuel was a descriptive title, ^ name of revelation, 
expressive of his Divine character. It is clear, also, 
that in this passage he is called God ; and two circum- 
stances, in addition to that just mentioned, prove that 
the term is used in its full and highest sense. In Isaiah, 
from which the passage is quoted by the Evangelist, the 
land of Judea is called the land of this Immanuel more 
than seven centuries before he was born. ' And he 
(the Assyrian) shall pass through Judah ; he shall over- 
flow and go over, he shall reach even to the neck, and 
the stretching out of his wings shall fill the breadth of 
thy land, O Immanuel," Chap. viii. 8. Thus is 
Christ, according to a former argument, represent* 



DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 



77 



ed as existing before his birth in Judea, and, as the 
God of the Jews, the proprietor of the land of Isra- 
el. This also gives the true explanation of St. John's 
words, ^ He came unto his own, [nation,] and his ovm 
[people] received him not.' The second circumstance 
which proves the term God, in the title Immanuel, to be 
used in its highest sense is, that the same person, in the 
following chapter of Isaiah, is called ^ God,' with the 
epithet of ^ mighty,' — ' Wonderful, Counsellor, the 
Mighty God.' Thus, as Bishop Pearson observes, 
' First, he is 'Immanu,^ that is with us, for he hath dwelt 
among us ; and when he parted from the earth, he said 
to his disciples, ' I am ivith you alway, even to the end 
of the vvorld.' Secondly, he is El, and that name was 
given him, as the same prophet testified, ^ his name shall 
be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God.' 
He then who is both properly called El, that is God, 
and is also really LmANU^ that is with us, must infalli- 
bly, be that ^ boiANUEL,' who is ^ God with us J No 
inferior Deity, but invested with the full and complete 
attributes of absolute Divinity — * the Mighty God.' ' 

In Luke i. 16, 17, it is said of John Baptist, ^ And 
many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord 
THEIR God, and he shall go before him in the spirit and 
power of Elias.' This passage has been already ad- 
duced to prove, that the title ^ Lord' is used of Christ 
in the import of Jehovah. But he is called the Lord 
tlieir God, and, as the term Lord is used in its highest 
sense, so must also the teim God, which proves that 
this title is given to our Saviour in its fullest and most 
extended meaning — ^ to Jehovah their God,' or ^ to 
their God Jehovah,' for the meaning is the same." 

Equally conclusive are the words of the Evangelist 
in John i. 1 : In the beginning w^as the word, and the 
word was with God, and the word was God." Christ 
is here called God in the highest sense. 1. Because 
when this title is applied to the Father, in the preceding 
clause, it must be used in its full import. 2. Because 
7* 



78 



immediately to call om- Lord by the same name is the 
Father, without any hint of its being used in a lower 
sense, would have been to mislead the reader on a most 
important question, if St. John had not regarded him as 
equal to the Father. 3. Because the creation is ascri- 
bed to the ••Word.'' who is called God, ••'All thino-s 
were made by him. and without him was not any thing 
made that was made.'' By this, the absolute Divinity 
of Christ is infallibly determined, unless we should run 
into the absurdity of supposing it possible for a creature 
to create, and not only to create all other created things, 
but himself also. For, if Christ be not God, he is a 
creature; and if ''not any thing that was made*' was 
made without him," then he made himself. 

The introduction to St. John's Gospel may, there-^ 
fore, be considered as an inexpugnable proof that Deity, 
in its highest, and in no secondary or subordinate, sense 
is ascribed to our Saviour, under his title God—- and 
the Word was God.' Nor in any other than the high- 
est sense of the term God can the confession of 
Thomas, John xx. 28, be understood. ' And Thomas 
answered and said unto him. My Lord and my God.* 
Unitarians, however, contend that this may be consider- 
ed not as a confession, but as an exclamation, ^ My 
Lord ! and my God !' thereby choosing to put profane, 
or, at least, \ailgar language into the mouth of this Apos- 
tle, of which degradation we have certainly no example 
in the narration of the Evangelists. Michaelis has 
justly observed, that if Thomas had spoken Germany 
(he might have added English, French, or Itahan,) it 
might have been contended, with some plausibility, that 
' My Lord and my God" was only an irreverent ejacu- 
lation ; but that Jewish astonishment was thus express- 
ed is wholly without proof or support. Add to this, 
that the words are introduced, with said to him, that is, 
to Christ ; a mere ejaculation, such as that here suppo- 
sed, is rather an appeal to Heaven. Our Sa-viour's re- 
ply makes it absolutely certain, that the words of 



DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 



79 



Thomas, though they are in the form of an exclamation, 
amount to a confession of faith, and were equivalent to 
a direct assertion of om' Saviour's Divinity. Clirist 
commends Thomas' acknowledgment, while he con- 
demns the tardiness with which it is made ; but to what 
did this acknowledgment amount ? That Christ was 
Lord and God. 

" In Titus ii. 13, ' Looking for that blessed hope, and 
the glorious appearing of the Great God and our Sa- 
viour Jesus Christ,' our Lord is not only called God, but 
the Great God, which marks the sense in which the 
term is used by the Apostle, and gives unequivocal ev- 
idence of his opinions on the subject of Christ's Divin- 
ity. Unitarian interpreters tell us, that • the Great God 
and our Saviour Jesus Christ' are two persons, and 
therefore refer the title ^ Great God ' to the Father* 
and accordingly render the text, ^ the glorious appear- 
ance of the Great God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ.' 
To this interpretation there are satisfactory answers. 
Dr. Whitby observes : 

^ Here it deserveth to be noted, that it is highly 
probable, that Jesus Christ is styled the Great God^ L 
Because, in the original, the article is prefixed only be- 
fore the Great God, and therefore seems to require this 
construction, the appearance of Jesus Christ, the Great 
God and our Saviour. 2. Because, as God the Father 
is not said properly to appear, so that word never oc- 
curs in the New Testament, but when it is to be ap- 
plied to Jesus Christ and to some coming of his ; the 
places in which it is to be found being only these : 2 
Thess. ii. 8 ; 1 Tim. vi. 14 ; 2 Tim. i. 10 ; and iv. 1, 
8. 3. Because Christ is emphatically styled our hope^ 
the hope of glory: Col. i. 23; 1 Tim. i' 1. And^ 
lastly, because not only all the ancient commentators on 
the place do so interpret this text, but the anti-Nicene 
fathers also ; Hyppolitus, speaking of the appearance 
of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ ; and Clemens of 
Alexandria, proving Christ to be both God and man, our 



80 



DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 



Creator, and the Author of all our good things, from 
these very words of St. Paul.' 

^^Another passage, in which the appellation God is 
given to Christ, in a connection which necessarily obli- 
ges us to understand it in its highest sense, is Heb. i. 8 : 
^But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for 
ever and ever.' The argument of the Apostle here 
determines the sense in which he calls Jesus, the Son, 
' God,' and the views he entertains of his nature. An- 
gels and men are the only rational createdhemgs in the 
universe which are mentioned by the sacred wTiters. 
The Apostle argues, that Christ is superior even to an- 
gels ; that they are but ministers, he a sovereign, seated 
on a throne ; that they worship him, and that he re- 
ceives worship ; that they are creatures, but he creator. 
' Thou, Lord, in the beginning has laid the foundation 
of the earth ; and the heavens are the works of thine 
hands ;' and, full of these ideas of supreme Divinity, 
he apphes a passage to him out the 45th Pslam, which 
is there addressed to the Messiah, ^ Thy throne, O God, 
is for ever and ever.' " 

The Unitarians, however, find fault with the trans- 
lation of this passage, and assume the responsibihty 
of rendering it as follows : But unto the Son he saith, 
God is thy throne forever and ever." This interpreta- 
tion, however, is monstrous, and derives no support 
from any parallel figurative or eliptical mode of expres- 
sion in the sacred vvritings. God the throne of a crea- 
ture ! If so, then a creature must be greater than God, 
inasmuch as the one who sits upon a throne must be 
greater than the throne upon which he sits. This, cer- 
tainly, is strange theology. A creature, in order to 
support Unitarianism, must become a God, while the 
infinite Jehovah must be converted into a throne to be 
occupied by this created Deity; and, finally, all this 
absurdity must be charged upon the inspired penman. 

^And we know that the Son of God is come, and 
hath given us an understanding, that we may know him 



DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 



81 



that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his 
Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and 
Eternal Life.' 1 John v. 20. Here our Saviour is 
called the true God and Eternal Life, The means by 
which this testimony is evaded, is to interpret the clause 
' him that is true,' of the Father, and to refer the pro- 
noun this^ not to the nearest antecedent, ' his Son Jesus 
Christ,' but to the most remote, ' him that is true.' All, 
however, that is pretended by Unitarian critics on 
this passage is, not that this construction must, but that 
it may take place. Yet even this feeble opposition to 
the received rendering cannot be maintained : for, 1. To 
interpret the clause, ' him that is true,' of the Father, 
is entirely arbitrary ; and the scope of the epistle, which 
was to prove that Jesus the Christ was the true Son of 
God, and, therefore. Divine, against those who denied 
his Divinity, and that ^ he had come in the flesh,' in 
opposition to the heretics who denied his humanity, 
obliges us to refer that phrase to the Son, and not to the 
Father. '2. If it could be established, that the Father 
was intended by • him that is true,' it would be contrary 
to grammatical usage to refer the pronoun this, is the 
^ true God and Eternal Life,' to the remote antecedent, 
without obvious and indisputable necessity. 

^ Whose are the fathers, and of whom, as concern- 
ing the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, God blessed 
forever.' Rom. ix. 5. 

With respect to this text, it is to be noted, 
L That it continues an enumeration of the partic- 
ular privileges of the Jewish nation which are mention- 
ed in the preceding verses, and the Apostle adds, * whose 
are the fathers,' the patriarchs and prophets, and of 
whom ^the Christ came.' 

"2. That he throws in a clause of limitation with 
respect to the coming of Christ, ^ according to the flesh, ^ 
which clearly states that it was only according to the 
flesh, the humanity of Christ, that he descended from 
the Jewish nation, and, at the same time, intimates^ 
that he was more than flesh, or mere human nature* 



83 



DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 



^^3. The sentence does not end here: the Apostle 
adds. ^ ivho is. over all, God blessed for ever a rela- 
tive expression which evidently refers to the antecedent 
Christ ; and thus we have an antithesis, which show^s 
the reason why the Apostle introduced the limiting 
clause, ^ according to the flesh and explains why 
Christ, in one respect, did descend from the Jews ; and 
in another that this could not be afSrmed of him : he 
was ' God over all.' and, therefore, only ' accordmg to 
the flesh ' could he be of human descent. 

*''4. That this completes the Apostle's pui^ose to 
magnify the privileges of his nation : after enumerating 
many others, he crowns the whole by declaring, that 
^God over all,' when he became incarnate for the sake 
of human salvation, took a body of the seed of Abra- 
ham. 

^* Criticism has, of course, endeavored, if possible, to 
weaken the argument drawn from this lofty and impreg- 
nable passage ; but it is of such a kind as greatly to 
confirm the truth. For, in the first place, various read- 
ings of manuscripts cannot here be resorted to for ren- 
dering the sense dubious, and all the ancient versions 
support the present reading. The only method of 
dealing with this passage left to Unitarians is, therefore, 
to attempt to obtain a different sense from it by shift- 
ing the punctuation. By this device some read, ' and 
of whom is the Christ according to the flesh. God, 
w^ho is over all, be blessed for ever.' Others, ^ and of 
whom is the Christ, according to the flesh, who is over 
all. Blessed be God for ever.' A critic of their owti, 
Mr. Wakefield, whose authority they acknowledge to 
be great, may, however, here be turned against them. 
Both these constructions, he acknowledges, appear so 
awkward, so abrupt, so incoherent, that he could never 
be brought to relish them in the least degree ; and Dr. 
S. Clarke, who was well disposed to evade this decisive 
passage, acknowledges that the common readmg is the 
most obvious. 



DIVINITY OF CHRISTi 



83 



' Socinus himself rejects it for this very good rea- 
son, that God be blessed, is an unusual and unnatural 
construction ; for, wherever else these words sicrnifv 
blessed be God, blessed is put before God, as Luke i. 
68 : 2 Co. i. 3 : Eph. i. 3 ; 1 Pet. i. 3 ; and God has 
an article prefixed to it ; nor are they immediately join- 
ed together otherwise. The phrase occurs twenty times 
in the Old Testament, but in every place blessed goes be- 
fore, and the article is annexed to the word God, which 
is a demonstration that this is a perversion of the sense 
of the Apostle's words.' 

^' Numerous other passages might be cited, where 
Christ is called ' God these only have been selected, 
not merely because the proof does not rest upon the 
number of scriptural testimonies, but upon their expli- 
citness, and also because they all associate the term God, 
as applied to our Saviour, with other thles, or with cir- 
cumstances which demonstrate, most fully, that that 
term was used by the insphed penmen in its highest 
sense of true and proper Deity when they applied it to 
Christ. Thus we have seen it associated with Jehovah ; 
with Lord, the New Testament rendering of that inef- 
fible name ; with acts of creative energy, as in the in- 
troduction to the Gospel of St. John ; with the supreme 
dominion and perpetual stability of the throne of the 
Son, in the Fhst chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews. 
In the Epistle to Titus, he is called * the Great God 
in 1 John, • the true God,' and the giver of ^ eter- 
nal LIFE and in the last text examined, his twofold na- 
ture is distinguished — man, • according to the flesh,' and, 
in his higher nature, God, ' God over all blessed for 
evermore." — Watson, 

IV. The acts ascribed to Christ prove that he is 
Divine, and absolutely God ; for they are such as could 
have been performgd by none but God. 

1. He creates. Col. i. 16, 17 : For by him were 
all things created that are in heaven, and that are 
in earth, visible and invisible whether they be 



84 



DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 



thrones or dominions, or principalities, or powers : all 
things were created by him, and for him : and he is be- 
fore all things, and by him all things consist." Here, 
as Dr. Clarke remarks, are four things asserted. 1. 
That Jesus Christ is the Creator of the universe, of all 
things that had a beginning, whether they exist in time 
or in eternity. 2. That whatsoever was created, was 
created for himself: that he was the sole end of his 
work. 3. That he was prior to all creation, to all 
beings, whether in the visible or invisible worlds. 4. 
That he is the preserver dindi governor of all things ; for 
by him all things consist. 

Now, allowing St. Paul to have understood the terms 
which he used, he must have considered Jesus Christ 
as being truly and properly God ; for creation is the 
proper work of an infinite, unlimited, and unoriginated 
being ; possessed of all perfections in their highest de- 
grees ; capable of knowing, willing, and working, infi- 
nitely, unlimitedly, and without control : and as crea- 
tion signifies the production of being, where all was 
absolute nonentity, so it necessarily implies that the Cre- 
ator acted of and from himself ; for, as previously to 
this creation there was no being, consequently he could 
not be actuated by any motive, reason, or impulse, 
without himself ; which would argue there was some 
being to produce the motive, or impulse, or to give the 
reason. Creation, therefore, is the work of him who 
is unoriginated, infinite, unlimited, and eternal. But 
Jesus Christ is the Creator of all things ; therefore Je- 
sus Christ must be, according to the plain construction 
of the Apostle's words, truly and properly God. 

As, previously to creation, there w^as no being but 
God, consequently the great First Cause must, in the 
exertion of his creative energy, have respect to himself 
alone ; for he could no more have respect to that which 
had no existence, than he could have been moved by 
nonexistence, to produce existence or creation ; the 
Creator; therefore, must make every thing /or himself. 



DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 



85 



Should it be objected, that Christ created officially, 
or by delegation, I answer, this is impossible ; for, as 
creation requires absolute and unlimited power, or om- 
nipotence, there can be but one Creator ; because it is 
impossible that there can be two or more omnipotents, 
infinites, or eternals. It is therefore evident, that crea- 
tion cannot be effected officially, or by delegation ; for 
this w^ould imply a being conferring the office, and del- 
egating such power : and that the being to whom it was 
delegated was a dependent being ; consequently, not 
unoriginated and eternal : but this the nature of crea- 
tion proves to be absurd: 1. The thing being impossi- 
ble in itself, because no limited being could produce a 
w^ork that necessarily requires omnipotence. 2. It is 
impossible : because if omnipotence be delegated, he 
to whom it is delegated had it not before ; and he 
who delegates it ceases to have it ; and consequently 
ceases to be God ; and the other to whom it is delega- 
ted becomes God ; because such attributes as those 
with which he is supposed to be invested, are essential 
to the nature of God. On this supposition, God ceas- 
es to exist, though infinite and eternal ; and another, not 
naturally infinite and eternal, becomes such : and thus an 
infinite and eternal being ceases to exist, and another in- 
finite and eternal being is produced in time, and has a 
beginning, which is absurd. Therefore, as Christ is the 
creator, he did not create by delegation, or in any offi- 
cial way. 

Again, if he had created by delegation, or officially, 
it would have been for that being who gave him that 
office, and delegated to him the requisite power ; but 
the text says, that all things were made by him, and for 
him, which is a demonstration that the Apostle under- 
stood Jesus Christ to be truly and essentially God. 

As all creation necessarily exists in time, and had a 
commencement, and there was an infinite duration in 
which it did not exist ; whatever was before or prior to 
that; must be no part of creation ; and the being who 
8 : . ^ 



86 



DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 



existed prior to creation, and before all things, all exist* 
ence of every kind, must be the unoriginated and eter- 
nal God : but St. Paul says, Jesus Christ was before all 
things ; therefore the Apostle conceived Jesus Christ 
to be truly and essentially God. 

2. As every effect depends upon its cause, and can- 
not exist without it, so creation, which is an effect of 
the power and skill of the Creator, can only exist and 
be preserved by a continuance of that energy that first 
gave it being. Hence God, as the preserver, is as ne- 
cessary to the continuance of all things, as God the 
creator was to their original production. But this pre- 
serving or continuing power is here ascribed to Christ ; 
for the Apostle says. And by him do all things consist ; 
for, as all being was derived from him, as its cause, so 
all being must subsist by him, as the effect subsists by 
and through its cause. This is another proof that the 
Apostle considered Jesus Christ to be truly and proper- 
ly God, as he attributes to him the preservation of all 
created things : which property of preservation, belongs 
to God alone : therefore, Jesus Christ is, according to the 
plain obvious meaning of every expression in this text, 
truly, properly, independently, and essentially God. — 
Clarke. 

3. But our Lord himself professes to do other acts, 
besides the great act of creating, which are peculiar to 
God ; and such acts are also attributed to him by his 
inspired Apostles. His preserving of all things made 
by him has already been mentioned, and which implies 
not only a Divine power, but also omnipresence, since he 
must be present to all things, in order to their constant 
conservation. The final destruction of the whole frame 
of material nature is also as expressly attributed to him 
as its creation. Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast 
laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the 
works of thine hands ; these shall perish, but thou re- 
mainest, and as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, 
and they shall be changed." Here omnipotent power is 



DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 



87 



seen changing,'' and removing, and taking away the 
vast universe of material things with the same ease as 
it was spoken into being and at first disposed into order. 
Generally, too, our Lord claims to perform the works of 
his Father. ^' If I do not the works of my Father, 
believe me not ; but if I do, though ye believe not me, 
believe the works." Should this, even, be restrained 
to the working of miracles, the argument remains the 
same. No Prophet, no Apostle, ever used such lan- 
guage in speaking of his miraculous gifts. Here Christ 
declares that he performs the works of his Father ; not 
merely that the Father worked hy him, but that he him- 
self did the works of God ; which can only mean works 
proper or peculiar to God, and which a Divine power 
only could effect. So the Jews understood him, for, 
upon this declaration, ^' they sought again to take him." 
That this power of working miracles was in him an ori- 
ginal power, appears also from his bestowing that pow- 
er upon his disciples. Behold I give unto you power 
to tread on serpents, and scorpions, and over all the 
power of the enemy, and nothing shall by any means 
hurt you." Luke x. 10. ^'And he gave them power 
and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases." 
Luke ix. 1. Their miracles were, therefore, to be per- 
formed in his name^ by which the power of effecting 
them was expressly reserved to him. Li my name 
shall they cast out devils :" •* and his name, through 
faith in his name hath made this man strong." 

4. The manner in which our Lord promises the Holy 
Spirit is farther in proof that he performs acts peculiar 
to the Godhead. He speaks of ^'-'sending the Spirit" 
in the language of one who had an original right and an 
inherent power to bestow that wondrous gift which was 
to impart miraculous energies, and heavenly wisdom, 
comfort, and purity to human minds. Does the Father 
send the Spirit : Christ claims the same power, — the 
Comforter, whom / icUl send unto you." The Spirit is, 
on this account, called the the Spirit of Christ" and 



88 



DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 



^' the Spirit of God." Thus-the giving of the Spirit is 
indifferently ascribed to the Son and to the Father; but 
when that gift is mediately bestowed by the Apostles^ no 
such language is assumed by them : they pray to Christ, 
and to the Father in his name, and he, their exalted 
Master, sheds forth the blessing — " therefore being by 
the rio-ht hand of God exalted, and havino; received of 
the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath 
shed forth this, which ye now see and hear." 

5. Another of the unquestionably peculiar acts of 
God, is the forgiveness of sins. In the manifest reason 
of the thing, no one can forgive but the j)arty offended ; 
and, as sin is the transgression of the law of God, he^ 
alone, is the offended party, and he only, therefore, can 
forgive. Mediately, others may declare his pardoning 
acts, or the conditions on which he determines to for- 
give ; but, authoritatively, there can be no actual for- 
giveness of sins against God but by God himself. But 
Christ forgives sin authoritatively, and he is, therefore, 
God. One passage is all that is necessary to prove 
this. He said to the sick of the palsy, Son, be of 
good cheer, thy sins he forgiven thee, The scribes 
who were present understood that he did this authorita- 
tively, and assumed, in this case, the rights of Divinity. 
They therefore said, among themselves, ''This man 
biasphemeth." What, then, is the conduct of our 
Lord? Does he admit that he only ministerially declared, 
in consequence of some revelation, that God had for- 
given the sins of the paralytic ? On the contrary, he 
works a miracle to prove to them that the very right 
which they disputed was vested in him, that he had 
this authority — '* but, that ye may know that the Son 
of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, then saith 
he to the sick of the palsy. Arise, take up thy bed, and 
go into thine own house." 

Such were the acts performed by our Saviour, in the 
days of his sojourn on earth, and which he is represent- 
ed, hj his inspired Apostles, to be still constantly per- 



DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 



89 



forming, or as having the power to perform. If any 
creature is capable of doing the same mighty works, 
then is all distinction between created finite natures and 
the uncreated Infinite destroyed. If such a distinction, 
in fact; exists ; if neither creation, preservation, nor 
salvation be possible to a mere creature, we have seen 
that they are possible to Clnist, because he actually 
creates, preserves, and saves : and the inevitable con- 
clusion is, THAT HE IS VERY GoD. JVatS07l, 

V. Jesus Christ is eternal, and therefore must be 
God ; for God is the only eternal being. The eternity 
of Christ may be argued in the first place from the in- 
troduction to St. John's Gospel: ''In the beginning 
was the word, and the word was with God. and the 
word was God.'' ^' The grammatical construction of 
this passage," says Drew, '•' evidently imports that this 
word was in existence at the beginning. He does not 
say that his existence commenced at the beginning, but 
that in the beginning ivas the word. The imperfect 
tense of the verb to be, which is here used, evidently 
denotes that he existed antecedently to the beginning ; 
and in a comprehensive expression like this before us, 
we cannot conceive how the eternal existence of Deity 
could be more fully expressed, if the Apostle had di- 
rected our views to that subject. 

It is of little consequence where we fix the period of 
beginning. Because the proposition expresses a univer- 
sal affirmation, which includes all. If we fix the be- 
ginning at the creation of man. the word was then. If 
we fix it at the commencement of time, the word then 
was : and if we carry back our views to the commence- 
ment of angelic existence, the word then was. For in 
either case, ' In the beginning was the word.' 

^' Novv^ that which v>'as in existence at the beginning, 
certainly existed before the beo-innino; : and that which 
existed before the besinnino;, must be without beo;innino ; 
and that which was without bestinning, must be eter- 
nal" 

8* 



90 



mrmiTt of cnm^Tr 



2. The eternity of Christ is also cleariy established 
by the fact that he is the Creator, or first cause of all 
things. St. John says, '-All things were made by 
him : and without him was not any thing made that was 
made/"' John i. 1. And the Apostle Paul says, CoL 
i. 16, For by him were all things created, that are in 
heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, vrhe- 
ther they be thrones or dominions, or principalities, or 
powers : all things were created by him and for him.'' 
It is here afSrmed by two inspired apostles that all 
things were made or created by Christ, and if all things 
were created by him, he was certainly before any thing 
was created. But lest this general expression, all 
things," should be restricted in its meaning, the Apostle 
Paul adds ^' all things that are in heaven and upon 
earth and, lest the in\isible spirits in heaven should 
be thought to be excluded, he further adds things visi- 
ble and thinp's invisible and, lest the invisible thincrs 
should be understood of inferior angels or spiritual be- 
ing's, and the hio;!! and o-lorious bein^-s who excel in 
Strength, and are, in Scripture, invested with other ele- 
vated properties, should be excepted, the apostle is still 
more particular, and adds whether thrones, or domin- 
ions, or principalities, or powers thereby ascribing the 
creation of every thing, whether high or low, Vvithin 
the w'lAe spread universe of God to Jesus Christ. But. 
as above remarked, if ail things were created by Christ, 
he must have existed before any thing was created ; and 
if he existed before any tiling was created, it is evident 
that he was not created, and if he was not created, he 
must be self-existent, and therefore eternal. 

3. Christ is before ail things. Col. i. 17 : ''And he 
is before all things, and by him all things consist." 
" Now," as Drew remarks, '• he vdio is before all things, 
is not a thing ; for if he was, he could not be before 
all things, unless he was before himself, which cannot 
possibly be. He, therefore, who is not a thing, but be- 
fore all things, must be without beginning, and he who 
exists without beginningj must be eternal.'^ 



DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 



91 



4. The eternity of our blessed Saviour is also clearly- 
exhibited in the following words of the Prophet Isaiah : 

Unto us a child is born, unto us a Son is given, his 
name shall be called Wonderful, Councellor, the mighty 
God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace/' 
Isaiah ix. 6. ^* • Everlasting Father," in this text, is va- 
riously rendered by the principal orthodox critics ; but 
every rendering is in consistency with the application 
of a positive eternity to the ^lessiah. of which this is a 
prediction. Bishop Loth says, ' The Father of the 
everlasting age.' Bishop Stock, • The Father of eter- 
nity i. e. the owner of it.'' But, if he is the Ever- 
lastino; Father, or the Father of the everlastino; a^e. the 
owner of eternity, he must be eternal. 

I am, however, aware that our opponents endeavor 
to urge the application of this name to the 3iessiah, 
against the doctrine of the Trinity. But it should be 
remembered that the Prophet is here describing the na- 
ture of the ^lessiah. and therefore gives him this name 
(Everlasting Father) as a name of nature. He is not 
describing his mode of existence with the Father and 
the Holy Spirit, but his essence as true and very God. 
For this reason, the application of this name to Jesus 
Christy by no means militates against the doctrine of 
the Trinity, or the peculiar relation of Christ in that 
Trinity ; but establishes and confirms it. For, if Christ 
be the Everlasting Father, and if there is but one God, 
the Father, then Christ being God, that divine person 
who is usually styled the Father, must be of one essence 
with Christ, or there would be two Gods. But if 
Christ and the Father are of one essence, and the Fa- 
ther be eternal, which is admitted by ail, then Christ 
must be eternal also. 

5. The eternity of Christ appears evident from the 
fact that he claims to be the I a3i : a title by which Je- 
hovah declares his self-existence and eternity to iMoses, 
by saying, Exod. iii. 14, ''I a3i that I a3i.'' And 
our Lord appears to refer to the same passage, andcer- 



DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 



tainly means the same thing, when he says, John viii. 

58, ' Before Abraham was I am.' In these last words, 
we see the eternity of Christ, not only in their resem- 
blance, and apparent reference to those words of Jeho- 
vah by which he declares his eternal nature, but also in 
the very circumstances in which they were spoken. 
Our Lord had just told the Jews, verse 56, ^ Your fa- 
ther Abraham rejoiced to see my day ; and he saw it, 
and was giad.^ By which the Jews understood him to 
mean that he existed when Abraham was on earth ; and 
to which they replied, verse 57, ' Thou art not fifty 
years old, and hast thou seen Abraham.' Then our 
Lord confirmed what they had understood him to mean^ 
Before Abraham ivas I am, I am from eternity. I am 
now, and I was with Abraham, and he acknowledged me 
to be his God, and desired me as his Saviour. That 
the Jews understood him to profess that he was the eter- 
nal God, and that they meant to punish him for supposed 
blasphemy according to their law, is evident from verse 

59, ' Then took they up stones to cast at him.' " — Hed* 
dingus Sermon on the Deity of Christ, But does our 
Saviour correct this wrong impression, (for wrong it 
must be if he was not the eternal God,) which he would 
have done if they had been mistaken ? No ! to have 
so acted, would have been derogatory to his dignity; 
and injurious to their interests. He actually repeats 
his claim to the character. He actually enforces his 
pretensions, to a supernatural priority of existence. He 
even heightens both. He mounts up far beyond Abra- 
ham. He ascends beyond all the orders of creation. 
And he places himself with God at the head of the 
universe. He thus arrogates to himself all that high 
pitch of dignity, which the Jews expected their Mes- 
siah to assume. This he does too in the most energetic 
manner, that his simplicity of language, so natural to 
inherent greatness, would possibly admit. He also in- 
troduces what he says, with much solemnity in the form^ 
and with more in the repetition. ' Verily, verily , I say 



DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 



93 



unto you/ he cries, ^ Before Abraham was, I am.' 
He says not of himself, as he says of Abraham, ' Be- 
fore he was, I was.^ This indeed would have been suf- 
ficient, to affirm his existence previous to Abraham. 
But it would not have been sufficient, to declare what 
he now meant to assert, his full claim to the majesty of 
the Messiah. He therefore drops all forms of language, 
that could be accommodated to the mere creatures of 
God. He arrests one, that was appropriate to the God- 
head itself. ' Before Abraham was,^ or still more pro- 
perly, ' Before Abraham vvas made,' he says, ' I am.' 
He thus gives himself the signature of uncreated and 
continual existence, in direct opposition to contingent 
and created. He says of himself. 

That an Eternal yow forever lasts, 

with him. He attaches to himself that very stamp of 
eternity, which God appropriates to his Godhead in 
the Old Testament, and from which an Apostle after- 
wards describes Jesus Christ expressly to be ' the same 
yesterday, to-day, and forever.' Nor did the Jews 
pretend to misunderstand him now. They could not. 
They heard him directly and decisively vindicating the 
noblest rights of their Messiah, and the highest honors 
of their God, to himself. They considered him as a 
mere pretender to those. They therefore looked upon 
him, as a blasphemous arrogator of those. ' Then took 
they up stones, to cast at him' as a blasphemer ; as 
what indeed he was in his pretensions to be God, if he 
had not been in reality their iMessiah and their God in 
one. But he instantly proved himself to their very 
senses, to be both ; by exerting the energetic powers of 
his Godhead, upon them. For he ' hid himself ; and 
went out of the temple, going through the midst of 
them ; and so passed by.' " — Whitaker. 

6. Christ is styled the Alpha and Omega, the begin- 
ning and the end, the first and the last. Now, by these 
very titles is the eternity of God express in Isaiah xliv. 



94 



DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 



6 : ^' Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel, and his 
Redeemer the Lord of hosts : I am the first, and I am 
the last ; and besides me there is no God."' The same 
sentiment is expressed, though in different words, in 
Laiah xliii. 10 : That ye may know and believe me, 
and understand that I am he : before me there was no 
God formed, neither shall there be after me. I. even I, 
am the Lord ; and besides me there is no Saviour.'' 
But. in Rev. i. 11, Christ is expressly styled the Jirst 
and the last. Therefore, if the passage quoted from 
Isaiah proves the eternity of God, which is admitted by 
all ; then the one from Revelation proves the eternity 
of Christ : for the same titles are there assumed by him 
as absolutely and as explicitly as they are by God in 
Isaiah ; and they clearly affirm that the being ^o whom 
they are applied had no beginning, and will have no 
end. 

He is also said, in Rev. i. 8, to be the Alpha and 
Omega, that is from eternity to eternity. '-This mode 
of speech is borrowed from the Jews, who express the 
tvJioIe compass of things hy aJejjh and tau ; the first 
and last letters of the Hebrew alphabet: but as St. 
John was writing in Greelx\ he accommodates the whole 
to the Greek alphabet, of which Alpha and Omega are 
the first and last letters. "With the Rabbins, mealeph 
veacl tail, from aleph to tau. expressed the whole of a 
matter, from the beginning to the end:' — (Claris 
notes on Rev, i, 8.) Therefore, Alpha and Omega, in 
the text under consideration, must express the whole of 
eternitv ; consequently. Christ must be from eternity to 
eternitv ; that is, he must bean eternal self-existent 
being. 

But it is objected by our opponents, that if these titles, 
Alpha and Omega, first and last, fee, prove the eter- 
nity of Christ, or that he existed before every other be- 
ing, it will also prove that he will exist after every other 
being : which would argue the annihilation of every be- 
ing in the universe, except God. 



DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 



95 



In answer to this, we would remark, that the same 
reasoning would, with the same propriety, disprove the 
eternity of God the Father ; for it is expressly said, 
Isah. xliv. 10, that he is the first and the last ; but this, 
according to the above reasoning, cannot be ; that is, 
God cannot be an eternal self-existent being, for if he is, 
he must exist after all other beings ; but if he exists 
after all other beings, then all other beings must be an- 
nihilated. But all other beings will not be annihilated, 
therefore God cannot be the first and last, or an eternal 
Being, which is the import of these terms. Consequent- 
ly, according to this reasoning of our opponents, God 
will cease to exist, or else every other being in the uni- 
verse will come to an end, and if Christ is not God, he 
must be annihilated with the rest. Our opponents, 
therefore, in order to sustain their position that the 
above mentioned titles do not prove the eternity of 
Christ, have either to annihilate God, or every other 
being in the universe ; consequently the world and the 
world's Saviour. 

We would, however, remark, before we dismiss this 
subject, that, by these titles, Alpha and Omega^ first 
and last, &c., being apphed to Christ, we are not to 
suppose that he will be the last being in existence, or 
that angels and men will ever cease to exist ; but w^e 
are to understand them as expressive of the whole of 
eternity ; for as the whole compass of things are embra- 
ced between the first and the last^ or as the alphabet is 
included within Alpha and Omega, so the whole of 
eternity is included in the existence of Jesus Christ. 

7. Eternal Life, when used as it is frequently in 
St. John's Epistles, is also a clear designation of the 
eternity of our Saviour. ' For the life was manifest- 
ed, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and show 
unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, 
and was manifest unto us.' 1 John i. 2. In the first 
clause of this text, Christ is called the life ; he is then 
said to be ' eternal and, that no mistake should arise. 



96 



DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 



the- Apostle endeavors to convince us that he designed 
to declare the eternal existence of Christ, he shows that 
he ascribes eternity to him in the pre-existent state^ 
• that eternal life v/hich was with the Father, and with 
him before he was manifested^ to men." — Watson. 
The eternal underived existence of our Saviour could 
not be more unequivocally expressed. 

8. The eternity of Christ is also established by the 
testimony of Solomon. Proverbs viii. 22, 23 : The 
Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before 
his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from 
beginning, or ever the earth was." That this passage 
refers to Christ, is evident from several considerations. 

1. It is admitted by our opponents. (See Millard^ s 
True Messiah^ pp. 91.) 

2. Personal acts are here ascribed to wisdom spoken 
of in this chapter. He is represented as standing, and 
crying, and performing various other acts which clearly 
denote personality. 

3. He is said to possess wisdom. But it would be 
absurd to say of wisdom, as an attribute, that it pos- 
sessed wisdom and sound understanding. Therefore 
this passage must refer to Christ the personal wisdom of 
God. It may, therefore, be considered as a strong proof 
in favor of his eternity ; for it affirms of him that he was 
set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the 
earth was ; and that Jehovah possessed him in the be- 
ginning of his way, before his worJcs of old. Now if 
the Lord possessed him in the beginning of his way, it 
is evident that he must be eternal, or else that the ways 
of God are not eternal. 

Again, if the Lord possessed him before his works 
of old, or his most ancient works, then he is not one of 
his works ; consequently, he cannot be created ; and if 
not created, he must be an eternal self-existent being. 
But finally, in order to render the doctrine still more 
certain, the text affirms that he was set up from ever- 
lasting^ or from eternity, and therefore he must be eter- 
nal. 



DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 



97 



9, This doctrine is most unequivocally taught in the 
prophecy of Micah, chap. v. 2 : ' But thou, Bethlehem 
Ephrata, though thou be little among the thousands of 
Judah, yet out of thee shall come forth unto me that is to 
be Ruler in Israel ; whose goings forth have been from of 
old, from everlasting.' This passage must ever stand 
as an irrefutable proof of the eternity of our adorable 
Saviour ; for he is, here expressly declared to be from 
everlasting, as it is rendered by the LXX. and the Vul- 
gate, and critics generally, ' from the days of eternity.^ 
So decisive is this text in favor of the eternity of Christ, 
that Unitarians are under the necessity of resorting to 
the most violent criticism in order to evade its force." — . 
(Watson,) But the only ground they occupy which 
has any show of plausibility is, that the w^ord everlasting 
does not imply endless duration. To support this, it is 
said that it is frequently applied to things which must 
necessarily come to an end, as the everlasting hills. 

In reply to this, we would remark, 

1. That in all such cases as the one given above 
when the term everlasting is applied to earthly objects, 
it is always limited by the noun which follows it. But 
what is there to limit in the text under consideration ? 
The noun to be supplied (if a noun is supplied at all,) 
is duration. But if this was supplied the text would 
read, whose goings forth have been from of old, from 
everlasting duration." This reading, however, instead 
of limitino; the word everlastino^, in the text under con- 
sideration, renders it, if possible, still more expressive 
of the eternity of the Saviour ; for duration is certainly 
endless. 

2. If being from everlasting does not prove Christ to 
be eternal, then the Bible fails to express the eternity of 
God the Father ; for this is the very language by which 
the eternity of the Father is declared. Psalms xc. 2 : 
^'From everlastino; to everlastino; thou art God and 
Hah. i. 12 : "Art thou not from everlasting. O Lord, 
my God ?" 

9 



98 



DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 



There is, perhaps, no language in Scripture more ex- 
pressive of the eternal existence of God than the lan- 
guage just quoted. But if the passage from Micah 
does not prove the eternity of Christ, these must forever 
fail of proving the eternity of the Father ; for if the 
being from everlasting does not prove Christ to be eter- 
nal, then the being from everlasting cannot prove the 
Father to be eternal. If, however, it does prove the 
Father to be eternal, then the Son must be eternal also. 
Our opponents are, therefore, under the necessity of ad- 
mitting the eternal existence of Christ, or of giving up 
the idea that the Scriptures teach the eternity of God 
the Father. 

Having, as we consider, fully established the doc- 
trine of the eternal pre-existence of our Saviour, a 
doctrine which is inseparably connected with the gospel 
system, and upon the truth of which hangs the hope of 
a fallen world, we shall pass to notice an objection which 
is very clamorously urged against it. This objection is 
founded upon the sonship of Christ. It is said that 
if Christ be the Son of God, he cannot be eternal ; for 
son implies a father ; and father implies, in reference to 
the son, precedency in time. Kgdin, father ^nA son 
imply the idea of generation ; and generation implies a 
time in which it was effected, and a time antecedent to 
that in which it was effected. Consequently, as Jesus 
Christ is the Son of God, he must have been generated 
or begotten, and therefore cannot be eternal. Again, it 
is very triumphantly asked, how can a. son be as old as 
his father? 

However plausible this objection may appear to su- 
perficial thinkers, it is presumed that when fairly exam- 
ined it will appear, to the candid and reflecting mind, 
to possess but very little weight, especially when con- 
trasted with the numerous and overwhelming arguments 
to which it stands opposed ; for, 

1. If Jesus Christ is truly and properly the Son of 
God, in the common acceptation of the term son, (a 



DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 



99 



doctrine for which many of our opponents contend,) he 
certainly must partake of the nature of God ; for it is 
evident that every son partakes of the nature of his 
father. But if he partakes of the nature of God, he 
must certainly be eternal, or else the Di\dne nature is 
not eternal. 

2. If Jesus Christ is properly the Son of God in his 
Divine nature, he must not only partake of the same 
nature of his Father, but he must also have eternally 
existed as the Son, or the Divine nature must have 
changed ; for upon the supposition that the Son is not 
eternal, there must have been a period when the Divine 
nature existed in the person of the Father only. But 
now it exists in the Father and the Son, consequently, 
it must have changed. 

We therefore see that to deny the eternal pre-exist- 
ence of Jesus Christ, and at the same time hold that 
he is truly and properly the Son of God, in the common 
acceptation of that term, is, in fact, to deny the eternity 
of God the Father, and contend for the mutability of 
the Divine nature. 

There is no way for our opponents to avoid these ir- 
resistable conclusions, which pierce the very vitals of 
their theology, but by admitting Christ to be eternal, or 
by supposing the term Son is applied to him in a re- 
stricted and peculiar sense. If they say that Christ is 
eternal, they yield the point for which we contend. If 
they say that the term Son is applied to him in a re- 
stricted and peculiar sense, they then give up the whole 
force of their objection. For if Jesus Christ is the Son 
of God in a peculiar sense, and not in the sense in 
which the term son commonly imports, his being called 
the Son of God in that peculiar sense can form no ob- 
jection to his eternity. Consequently, the eternity of 
Christ remains with all its force against the Unitarian 
hypothesis, proving, beyond all possibility of contra- 
diction, that he is God ; for God is the only eternal 
being. 



100 



DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 



VI. Having shown that Jesus Christ is an eternal 
unoriginated being, we now propose proving that he is 
immutable, which is another distinguishing attribute of 
God. 

1. We argue his immutabihty from his eternity. 
That Jesus Christ is eternal has been abundantly pro- 
ved ; consequently, to suppose that he is subject to 
change is to suppose that an eternal being may change ; 
and to suppose that an eternal can change is to suppose 
that God may change. But God cannot change ; for 
he expressly says in Malachi iii. 6, I am the Lord ; I 
change not and if God cannot change, as he is the 
only eternal being, then an eternal being cannot change. 
But Jesus Christ is eternal, therefore he must be immu- 
table and absolutely God. 

2. The immutability of Christ appears from his Di- 
vinity. That he is a Divine person is admitted by our 
opponents. Mr. IMillard, in his work entitled the True 
Messiah, page 114, says, ^^As Christ proceeded forth 
from God, and was made flesh, he is far superior to hu- 
man, and is divine." Consequently, in founding an 
argument in favor of his immutability, upon his Divini- 
ty, when it is so clearly admitted, cannot be considered 
as begging the question, or as assuming more than what 
is granted. If, however, he is Divine, it is evident that 
he must be immutable, unless we suppose that a Di\ane 
beino; can chano-e. But if a Divine beino; can chano-e, 
then we arrive at the conclusion that God is a changea- 
ble being. But it is admitted by all that God is un- 
changeable, therefore Divinity cannot change ; and if 
Divinity cannot change, and Christ be a Divine person^ 
then he cannot change, but must be immutable. There 
is no way of escaping the force of this conclusion, but 
by saying that there are two kinds of Di\dnity, a doc- 
trine which is wholly unsupported by Scripture. 

3. It is contended by our opponents that Christ is the 
proper Son of God, consequently, as we have already 
remarked^ he must partake of the nature of God, for 



DIVINIXr OF CHRIST. 



101 



every Son partakes of the nature of his father. This 
is also admitted by Mr. Millard, in the work above 
mentioned, page 112: He partook of his Father 
and on page 113 he says, '-'that the Son of God par- 
took of, or proceeded forth from God his father, is per- 
fectly consistent with Scripture.'' But if he partook of 
the nature of his Father, or, as Mr. M. has it, of his 
Father/^ he must be as unchangeable as his Father. 
Again, if he partook of God '' he must be a part of 
God, and therefore of the same essence of his Father ; 
consequently he must be immutable, or the very nature 
of God is subject to change : and if God is changeable 
he is not a perfect or infinite being. 

4. If Christ is not immutable, what confidence have 
we to tmst in him as a Saviour ? Notwithstanding he 
has poured forth his blood for us upon the cross, rose for 
our justification, and is now our Mediator and interces- 
sor at the bar of offended justice, yet, on the supposi- 
tion that he is mutable, he may change, and intercede 
for man no longer, and that too without the noncompli- 
ance with any of the conditions of the gospel on the 
part of man ; or he may change the enthe plan of sal- 
vation, alter the conditions of the gospel, and leave us 
without a knowledge of the conditions upon which he 
will finally be pleased to save us. Yea, upon the sup- 
position that he is not immutable, but mutable and 
changeable, he may finally become a sinner himself, 
and man be left without a mediator, without an inter- 
cessor, and without a Saviour. Who, then, would dare 
to trust their hopes of heaven on Jesus Christ, if he is 
not immutable ? 

5. The immutabihty of Christ is plainly taught in 
the Sacred Scriptures. Paul, in his letter to the He- 
brews xiii. 8, uses the following language : Jesus 
Christ, the same yesterday, to-day, and forever." Here 
immutability and eternity, which is inseparably con- 
nected with it, are both ascribed to Christ. But im- 
mutability is an attribute peculiar to Jehovah. Mai. iii. 

9# 



102 



DIVINITY Of CflRt^V 



6 : For I am the Lord^ and change not ; therefore ye" 
sons of Jacob are not consumed.'^ ^-All creatures/' 
says Bishop Heddrng, are subject to change, but 
Christ is always the same/' the same yesterday, to- 
day and for ever, therefore he is not a mere creature, 
but he is that veiy immutable being who says, I 
change not,''' 

That the phrase the same yesterday, to-day and for-^ 
ever" is expressive of immutability, needs no proof; 
therefore Jesus Christ is immutable and eternal. 

^'A similar and most solemn description of eternity 
and immutability occurs in Heb. i. lO — 12: ' Thou^ 
Lord, in the beginninD; has laid the foundation of the 
earth : and the heavens are the vrorks of thy hands. 
They shall perish ; but thou remainest : and they shall 
%vax old as doth a garment ; and as a vesture shalt thou 
fold them up, and they shall he changed : but thou art 
the same, and thy years shall not fail.' These words 
are quoted from Pslam cii., which all acknowledge to 
be a lofty description of the eternity of God. They 
are here applied to Christ ; and of him they affirm that 
he was before the material universe — that it was created 
by him — that he has absolute powder over it — that he 
will destroy it — -that he will do this with infinite ease^ 
as one who folds up a vesture ; and that, amidst the de** 
cay and changes of material things, he remains the 
same. The immutability here ascribed to Christ is not^ 
however, that of a created Spirit, which will remain 
when the material universe is destroyed ; for then there 
would be nothing proper to Christ in the text ; nothing 
but in which angels and men participate with him, and 
the words would be deprived of all meaning. His im- 
mutability and duration are peculiar, and a contrast is 
implied between his existence and that of all created 
things. They are dependent, he is independent and ne-^ 
cessary,^^ (Watson,) and therefore he must be an eter- 
nal immutable being. 

Thou art the same, and thy years shall not falL'^ 



DIVINITY OF CHRIST, 



103 



These words were undoubtedly spoken by the Psalm- 
ist of the true God ; the Prophets having so often 
miformed us that he only made the heavens and 
and the earth ; besides, the preceding words cannot be 
understood of any but Jehovah. Either, then, the 
inspired writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews did not 
understand the passage he produced, or he knew that the 
immutable God was described by it : for the sublime 
characters contained in it are so peculiar to him that 
there is no instance of the Prophets applying them to 
any other. But the Apostle, in the passage quoted 
from Hebrews, applies them to Jesus Christ, therefore 
he must be the immutable and eternal God, 

But it is objected to the immutability of Christ, that 
he grew in stature, that he increased in wisdom and 
knowledge, and underv-'ent various other changes, all 
of which are said to be opposed to his immutability. It 
should, however, be remembered that he was man as 
well as God ; or, as it is finely expressed in the lan- 
guage of the Methodist Church, in him were united 
''two whole and perfect natures, that is to say, the 
Godhead and manhood." (See Discipline,) This union 
of the human and Divine nature in the person of Je- 
sur Christ is so clearly taught in the Sacred Scriptures.^ 
that it will not be necessary, in this place, to say much 
in its defence, especially as v;e intend to dwell more ful- 
ly upon this point in another part of this work. We will, 
however, quote a few passages of Scripture which, from 
their explicitness, must establish both the Divinity and 
humanity of Christ, at least in the minds of those who 
are not so strongly attached to their preconceived opin- 
ions as to be incapable of feeling the force of gospel 
truth. In Heb. ii. 14, the Apostle, speaking of Christ, 
says, Forasmuch, then, as the children are partakers 
of flesh and blood, he also himself, likewise, took part 
of the same." Here the Divine nature is plainly re- 
cognized as taking upon it flesh and blood, or human 
nature. But lest it should be said that he took upon 



104 



DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 



him the physical and not the intellectual part of our 
nature, the Apostle adds, verse 16, For verily he took 
not upon him the nature of angels, but he took upon 
him the seed of AbrahamJ^ Therefore he must have 
possessed both a human soul and body, or else the seed 
of Abraham did not. 

But if the seed of Abraham (the Jews) did possess 
human souls and bodies, Jesus Christ must have pos- 
sessed the same ; consequently, he vv^as a perfect man, 
and as such he passed through the various changes above 
mentioned while in his Divine nature he remains the 
same, the immutable the unchangeable God. 

Unless Unitarians are willing to admit this, they must 
not only deny that the seed of Abraham possessed a 
human nature, but they must also deny that the Bible 
is the word of God, for in one place it says that Jesus 
Christ is " the same yesterday, to-day and forever," 
while in others it represents him as passing through va- 
rious changes ; both of which cannot be true, unless the 
union of two natures in the person of Christ be admit- 
ted ; therefore, upon the theory of our opponents, which 
denies this union, the Bible must be contradictory and 
false. 

VII. To these essential attributes of Deity, to be 
without beginning and without change, is added that of 
being extended through all space. He is not only im- 
mutable and eternal, but omnipresent. He therefore 
declares himself to be in heaven and upon earth at the 
same time. 1 John iii. 13 : No man hath ascended 
up to heaven, but he that came down fi'om heaven, 
even the son of man which is in heaven." In this 
passage, our Lord probably designed to correct a false 
notion among the Jews, viz. that Moses had to ascend 
to heaven in order to get the Law. It is not Moses 
who is to be heard now, but Jesus ; Moses did not as- 
cend to heaven, but the son of man is come down from 
heaven to reveal the divine will. And lest a wrong 
meaning should be taken from the foregoing expression, 



DIVINITY OF CHRIST, 



105 



and it should be imagined that in order to manifest him- 
self upon earthy he must necessarily leave heaven ; our 
blessed Lord qualified it by saying, ' the son of man 
which is in heaven.' Showing that he was in heaven 
and upon earth at the same time ; pointing out by this, 
the ubiquity or omnipresence of his nature : a charac- 
ter essentially belonging to God ; for no being can pos- 
sibly exist in more places than one at the same time, but 
He who jiUs the heavens and the earths — (Claris.) 
But according to the above passage, Jesus Christ did 
exist in more than one place at the same time ; for he 
was in heaven while upon earth. Therefore, Jesus 
Christ must be the omnipresent God. 

2. The omnipresence of Christ is most clearly taught 
in Matth. xviii. 20 : " For where two or three are ga- 
thered in my name, there am I in the midst of them.'' 
Here our Saviour most expressly promises to be with 
his children wherever they shall be assembled in his 
name. But this is a promise which can only be ful- 
filled by an omnipresent being : for the children of 
God are assembled in various places at the same time : 
and if Christ redeems his promise, if he is wherever 
they are assembled, he must be at the same moment in 
all these different places ; consequently, he must be in 
Europe, Asia, Africa, and America, yea, in the various 
Islands of the Sea, and wherever there is an assembly 
of his saints, at the same time. No being, however, 
who is not omnipresent, can be in more than one place 
at once. We must, therefore, conclude that Jesus 
Christ is omnipresent, or that he has not the ability to 
perform his promise. 

But it is contended by some that this promise is to be 
limited to the apostolic age. But were this granted, 
what would the concession avail ? In the apostolic 
age, the disciples met in the name of their Lord many 
times in the week, and in innumerable parts of the 
world at the same time, in Judea, Asia Minor, Europe, 
Sec. He, therefore, who could be in the midst of 



106 



DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 



tJiem,^'' even in the apostles' day, whenever and wherev- 
er they assembled, must be omnipresent. 

To say that Christ is in the midst of our religious as- 
semblies by his Spirit," is not sufficient. " For if the 
Spirit intended be the Spirit of Christ, Christ must cer- 
tainly be omnipresent ; because that Spirit is present, 
with devout worshippers, in all places at the same time. 
But that Jesus is omnipresent, our opponents will not 
allow. The Spirit in question, therefore, must be that 
of the Father, and not of Christ : consequently, not our 
Lord, but the Divine Father, is present in our assem- 
blies,'' (Abbadie) whereas, it is Christ who made the 
promise contained in the text under consideration, and 
who promises to be with his people. 

3. At the very moment of his ascension, that is, 
just when, as to his bodily presence, he was leaving his 
disciples, he promises still to be with them, and calls 
their attention to this promise by an emphatic particle," 
(Watson) ^^And Lo I am with you always, even to 
the end of the world." Now I ask if Christ is able to 
fulfill this promise which for eighteen hundred years has 
been as an anchor to his ministering servants, support- 
ing them in all their trials and temptations, encouraging 
tliem to persevere in the discharge of duty amidst the 
most discouraging and trying circumstances, enabling 
them to rejoice while in the dungeon or upon the rack, 
and finally to triumph in a martyr's death ? If he is, he 
must be omnipresent ; for his ministers are now lifting 
the standard of the cross in every quarter of the globe. 

"From Greenland's icy mountains, 
From India's coral strand, 
Where Afric's sunny fountains 
Roll down their golden sand," 

they are heard offering salvation in the name of Jesus 
to a lost and ruined world. And wherever they are to 
be found preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ, whether 
ki the consecrated sanctuary, reared by the hand of ci- 



DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 



107 



vilization, or in the savage wigwam^ whether under the 
scorching sun of the torrid zone, or in the frozen regions 
of the poles, Jesus is always with them, and has promis- 
ed to be with them to the end of time. Therefore, he 
must be omnipresent ; for no being who is not omnipre- 
sent can be in more than one place at the same thne. 

It is, however, contended that the presence, referred 
to in this promise, is a spiritual presence, and that it 
was confined to the apostles previous to the destruction 
of Jemsalem, or that it was the miraculous power which 
the apostles possessed before this period. ^' Let even 
this be allowed, though it is a very partial view of the 
promise ; then if till the destruction of Jerusalem, the 
apostles were ' always,' at all times, able to work mii'a- 
cles, the power to enable them to effect these wonders, 
must ^ always,' and in all places^ have been present with 
them ; and if that was not a human endowment, if a 
power superior to that of man were requisite for the per- 
formance of the miracles, and that power was the pow- 
er of Christ, then he was really, though spiritually, pre- 
sent with them, unless the attribute of power can be 
separated from its subject, and the pov/er of Christ be 
where he himself is not. This, however, is a low view 
of the import of the promise, * Lo, I am with you/ 
which, both in the Old and New Testaments, signifies 
to be present with any one, to help, comfort, and suc- 
cor him." — (Watson,) We therefore see that to veri- 
fy this promise, even to the apostles, our Saviour must 
be omnipresent. 

4. The omnipresence of our Saviour is, also, clearly 
established by the fact that he is the preserver of all 
things. 2 Pet. iii. 7 : But the heavens and the 
earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in 
store, reserved unto fire against the day of Judgment 
and perdition of ungodly men." Now, if the heavens 
and the earth are kept in store or reserved unto fire by 
the word, which is Christ, they must be preserved by 
him, and if they are preserved by him, he must extend 



108 



DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 



through them all and fill them with his immediate pre- 
sence ; unless we can suppose that his power can be ex- 
erted in the preservation of the heavens and earthy in- 
cluding the \^ hole planetary system, when entirely sep- 
arate from him. 

Again, it is said, in Col. i. 17, that, by him all 
things consist." This, indeed, necessarily follows from 
what the Apostle affirms of him in the preceding verse, 
viz. that he created all things. For, as all things were 
derived from him, as their cause, so all things must con- 
sist, or be preserved by him, as the effect subsists by 
and through its cause. The Apostle then, here, not on- 
ly attributes the creation, but the conservation of all 
things to Christ ; but to preserve them, his presence 
must be co-extensive with them, and thus the universe 
of matter and created spirits, heaven and earth, must be 
filled with his power and presence. This short sen- 
tence, '"By him all things consist," imphes that our 
Lord's presence extends through every part of the cre- 
ation : to every beins; and svstem in the universe : a 
most striking and emphatic al description of his omni- 
presence. For, if all things consist by Christ, he must 
be everywhere to uphold them. 

5. Jesus Christ is represented as dwelling in his chil- 
dren. In Eph. iii. 17, the Apostle prays that Christ 
may dwell in the hearts of his brethren. And, in Col. 
i. 27, this indwelling of Christ appears to be the burthen 
of the Apostle's preaching. Christ in you, the hope 
of glory : whom we preach." But this prayer of the 
Apostle, who was under the inspiring influence of the 
Holy Ghost, must, forever, remain unanswered ; and his 
preaching must be false and vain, if Jesus Christ be not 
omnipresent. For how can our Saviour dwell in the 
hearts of his children, either by faith, or as the hope of 
glory, if he is not every where present ? It would be 
impossible. For the children of God are in numerous 
places at the same time. Even in the apostolic age 
they were scattered throughout Judea, Asia Minor, Eu- 



DIVINITY OF CHRIST* 



109 



rope, and some parts of Africa. Therefore, if Christ 
dwells in all their hearts, a blessing for which the Apos- 
tle prayed, and a doctrine which he preached, then he 
must be in all these places at thcsame time. But a be- 
ing who is not omnipresent, can only be in one place at 
once. Therefore, Christ must be omnipresent, or, as 
above remarked, the Apostle's prayer can never be an- 
swered, his preaching must be false ; and it is in vain 
for us to pray for the presence of our Saviour. 

6. This doctrine is also taught in Rev. iii. 20 : Be- 
hold, I stand at the door, and knock : if any man hear 
my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and 
will sup with him, and he with me." In this text, there 
are two things worthy of notice. 1. Christ is here re- 
presented as standing and knocking at the door of the 
sinner's heart. And as there are no exceptions given in 
the text, he must stand at the door of every heart that 
has not yielded to his grace ; consequently, his presence 
must extend to the utmost bounds of the habitable 
world. Wherever there is an unregenerate soul, there he 
stands and knocks at the door of his heart ; but to do 
this, he must be omnipresent. 2. For the encourage- 
ment of those who hear his voice, and open the door 
unto him, our Saviour promises in this passage that he 
will come in unto them, and sup with them. This pro- 
mise has, doubtless, carried joy to the hearts of thou- 
sands. It has fallen upon the ear of the almost despair- 
ing sinner as the voice of pardon upon those of the man 
condemned to die. But deny the omnipresence of our 
Saviour, and you strip it of all its consoling influence, 
yea, upon the supposition that he is a finite and limited 
being, it would be impossible for him to redeem the 
pledge which he has here given, unless we can suppose 
that among the many thousands who are now flying to 
him for mercy, only one yields at the same time. 

Our opponents endeavor to evade the force of these 
arguments, in favor of the omnipresence of our Saviour, 
by supposing that a being may be in different places at 
. 10 



110 



DIVINITY or CHRIST. 



the same time, without being omnipresent. To give 
this some show of plausibihty, it is said that the Devil 
is in many places at the same time, and yet no one con- 
tends that he is omnipresent. Thus bringing our Sa- 
viour, as far as his omnipresence is concerned, down up- 
on a level with the prince of darkness. Mr. Millard 
has too plainly committed himself upon this subject to 
be misunderstood. In his True Messiah, p. 155, in re- 
ply to Dr. Luckey, he has the following words : So 
far would Mr. L. be from maintaining that none but the 
infinite God can be present in different places at the 
same time, that he will no doubt acknowledge that even 
Satan is in many places at once. That this old accu- 
ser of the brethren is in many places at the same time, 
he no doubt believes. If he is willing to admit this, 
(and I think he will not deny it.) why should he think 
it impossible for the Son of God to be present at differ- 
ent places with his disciples at the same time, and yet 
not be the very God himself?" 

Why Mr. i\I. should think that Dr. Luckey, or anv 
other Trinitarian, believes that the Devil is in different 
places at the same time, I am at a loss to know. It is, 
however, certain that such a doctrine has never been 
taught by them. Nor has Mr. M, found it in any of 
their writings. So far are Trinitarians from admitting 
that the Devil, or any other created being, occupies 
more than one place at the same time, that they have 
universally taught this to be an attribute peculiar to 
God. It is not so, however, with Mr. M., for, from the 
above extract, it appears that he believes that the Devil 
is in many places at the same time ; consequently, he 
must have an omnipresent Devil, or, if he is not willing 
to admit this, then he must say that Jesus Christ is no 
more omnipresent than the prince of darkness. Mr. M. 
probably founds his peculiar doctrine of the omnipre- 
sence of the Devil, upon the fact that many persons 
are subject to temptation at the same period of time. 
It should; however; be remembered; 1, That the Devil 



DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 



Ill 



iias many demons under his direction. We know not 
the number of fallen angels ; they may be more than 
the whole family of man. Therefore, it is possible that 
men may be tempted in dilterent places at the same 
time, and yet the Devil not be in more than one place 
at once. 

2. We are not sure that evil spirits may not produce 
effects which often remain \^'hen those spuits are no 
longer immediately present. We know that a moral prin- 
ciple once imbibed, often produces effects for a long 
period after the departure of the person from whom it 
has been imbibed. In ^iew of this fact, and the one 
above mentioned, it is evident that dilterent men may 
he tempted at the same time, and still the Devil be in 
only one place at once : therefore, the idea of his being 
m different places at the same time, is left without the 
least shadow of support, and the omnipresence of our 
Saviour remains untouched. ^lay we not then say of 
him, that he 

"Lives tlirough all life, extends through all extent, 
Spreads undivided, operates unspent, 
Breathes in our souls, informs our mortal parts, 
As full, as perfect, in a hair, as heart : 
As full, as perfect, in vile man that mourns, 
As tlie rapt seraph that adores and burns. 
To him no high, no low, no great, no small, 
He fills, he bounds, connects, and equals all.*' 

VIII. Christ is omniscient, or infinite in wisdom. 
This cannot be the attribute of a creature, for. though it 
may be difficult to say how far the knowledge of the high- 
est order of intelligent creatures may be extended, yet is 
there two kinds of knowledc^e which God has made 
pecuhar to himself by a pecuUar claim. The first is, the 
perfect knowledge of the thoughts and intents of the 
heart. ^ I the Lord search the heart, I try the reins.' 
Jeremiah xvii. 10. ' Thou, even thou only,' says Solo- 
mon^ ^knowest the hearts of all the children of men,' 1 



112 



DIVINITY OF CHRIST^ 



Kings viii. 39. This knowledge is attributed to and 
was claimed by our Lord, and that without any intima- 
tion that it was in consequence of a special revelation, 
or supernatural gift, as in a few instances we see in the 
Apostles and Prophets, bestowed to answer a particular 
and temporary purpose. In such instances also, it is to be 
observed, that the knowledge of the spirits and thoughts 
of men was obtained in consequence of a revelation 
made to them by Him whose prerogative it is to search 
the heart. In the case of our Lord, it is, however, not 
merely said, ' And Jesus TxJiew their thoughts^' that he 
'perceived in his spirit^ that they so reasoned among 
themselves ; but it is referred to as an attribute or ori- 
ginal faculty, and it is, therefore, made use of by St. 
John, on one occasion, to explain his conduct with re- 
ference to certain of his enemies : — ' But Jesus did not 
commit himself unto them, because he knew all men, 
and needed not that any should testify of man ; for he 
KNEW WHAT WAS IN MAN,' Johu ii. 24, 25. After his 
exaltation, also, he claims the prerogative in the full style 
and majesty of the Jehovah of the Old Testament : 
' And all the churches shall know that I am he which 

SEARCHETH THE REINS AND THE HEART,^ '' (WtttSOU,) 

Rev. ii. 23. It is, therefore, certain that our Saviour 
knows the hearts and tries the reins of the children of 
men, while Jehovah claims this as his peculiar preroga- 
tive ; and Solomon, in his address to Deity, says, 
Thou, even thou only, knowest the hearts of all the 
children of men therefore, Jesus Christ, the Saviour 
of sinners, must be the omniscient God. 

2. ^' A striking description of the omniscience of 
Christ is also found in Heb. iv. 12, 13, if we understand 
it, with most of the ancients, of the hypostatic Word ; 
(Jesus Christ,) to which sense, I think the scope of the 
passage and context clearly determines it. ' For the 
Word of God is quick (living) and powerful, and 
sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the 
dividing asunder of soul and spirit and of the joints aad 



mtlNITY OF CHRIST. 



113 



marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and 
INTENTS OF THE HEART ; neither is there any creature 
that is not manifest in his s'Mit ; for all thino-s are na- 
ked and open to the eyes of him with whom we have 
to do/ The reasons for referring this passage rather to 
Christ, the author of the Gospel, than to the Gospel it- 
self, are, first, that it agrees better with the Apostle's 
aro-miient. He is warnino- Christians against the exam- 
pie of ancient Jewish unbelief, and enforces his warn- 
ing by reminding them, that the "vVord of God discerns 
the thoughts and intents of the heart. The argument is 
obvious, if the personal Word is m.eant ; not at all so, 
if the doctrine of the Gospel be supposed. Secondly, 
the clauses, ' neither is there any creature that is not 
manifest in his sight,' and, all ^ things are naked and 
open to the eyes of him, with whom we have to do,' or 
^to whom we must give an account,' are undoubtedly 
spoken of a person, and that person our witness and 
judge. Those, therefore, who think that the Gospel is 
spoken of in verse 12, represent the Apostle as making 
a transition from the Gospel to God himself in what fol- 
lows. This, however, produces a violent break in the 
argument, for vvhich no grammatical nor contextual rea- 
son whatever can be given : and it is evident that the 
same metaphor extends through both verses. This is 
tkken from the practice of dividing and cutting asunder 
the bodies of beasts slain for sacrifice, and laying thern 
open for inspection, lest any blemish or unsoundness 
should lurk within, and render them unfit for the sevvice 
of God. The dividing asunder of - the joints and mar- 
row' in the lr2th verse, and the being made ' naked and 
open to the eyes,' in the 13th, are all parts of the same 
sacrificial and judicial action, to v-hich, therefore, we 
can justly assign but one agent. The only reason given 
for the other interpretation is, that the term Logos is 
nowhere else used by St. Paul. This can weigh but 
little against the obvious sense of the passage. St. 
Luke i. 2, appears to use the term Logos, in a personal 
10=^ 



114 



BiriNlTY OF CHRIST. 



sensCj and he uses it but once ; and if St. Paul uses it 
here, and not in his other epistles, this reason may be 
given, that in other epistles he writes to Jews and Gen- 
tiles united in the same churches ; here, to Jews alone, 
among whom we have seen that the Logos was a well- 
known theological term." — (Watson,) It is, there- 
fore, evident that this passage refers to Christ ; and of 
him it affirms, that he is a discerner of the thoughts^ 
and intents of the heart, that all things are naked 
and open to his eyes, and that there is not any thing 
that is not manifest in his sight ; therefore, he must be 
infinite in wisdom. 

3. As the knowledge of the heart is attributed to 
Christ, so also is the knowledge of futurity ; which h 
another quality so peculiar to Deity, that we find the 
true God distinguishing himself from all the false divi- 
nities of the Heathen by this circumstance alone. I 
am God, and there is none like me, Declaring the end 
from the beginning, and from ancient times the things 
that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stands 
and I will do all my pleasure," Isaiah xlvi. 9, 10. So 
certain, however, is it that Christ possessed this know^- 
ledge of futurity, and that he was capable of making 
known future events, that it is said to have been his 
spirit which inspired the prophets. 1 Pet. i. 9, 10, IL 

Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of 
your souls : of which salvation the prophets have inqui- 
red diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should 
come unto you : searching what, or what manner of 
time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signi- 
fy, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christy 
and the glory that should follow It is also affirmed, 
John vi. 64, that Jesus knew from the beginning who 
they were that believed not, and who should betray 
him ;" and again, it is said, For Jesus knew who 
should betray him." These passages of holy writ, as 
well as the numerous predictions which were uttered by 
our Saviour, many of which have been most literally^ 



DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 



115 



and circumstantially fulfilled, prove conclusively that the 
future is open to his omniscient eye. Therefore, he 
must be that infinitely wise being, who, by the mouth of 
the Prophet, makes the following inquiry concerning 
himself: ''To whom will ye liken me, and make me 
equal, and compare me, that we may be like ?*' '• 1 am 
God, and there is none like me, Declaring th e end from 
the beginning , and from ancient times the things that 
are not yet done.'' 

In order to evade the force of this argument, it is 
contended by our opponents, that this knowledge of fu- 
turity was possessed by Christ in consequence of a spe- 
cial revelation from God, as in the case of the Prophets. 
But if this was the fact with regard to the knowledge 
of our Saviour, why does he not give us some intima- 
tion of it ? Why does he remain silent upon this im- 
portant point, while the Prophets are so particular to in- 
form us from whence they derived their knowledge of 
futurity, and while he must have known that this vevj 
silence was calculated to mislead us, if this knowledge 
was not an original attribute of his nature ? But in- 
stead of giving us to understand that he received this 
knowledge from any other source, he uniformly speaks 
of it as proceeding from his own prescience. And so 
far are the Apostles from teaching that Christ possessed 
this knowledge in consequence of revelation, that they 
inform us that it was his Spirit which was in the Pro- 
phets inspiring them to foretell future events. 

4. The omniscience of Christ is also most clearly 
taught m Col. ii. 2, 3 : That their hearts might be 
comforted, beino^ knit to^-ether in love, and unto all riches 
of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknow^- 
ledgment of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and 
of Christ, in whom are hid all the treasures of ivis-^ 
doni and TtnowIedgeJ^ Now if the treasures, and all 
the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hid in Christ, 
as this text plainly declares, he must be infinite in wis- 
dom. Nor is St, Paul the only Apostle of our Saviour 



116 



DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 



who bears testimony to this important truth ; for Peter 
addresses him in the following impressive language : 
''Lord thou hnowest all things ; thou Jcnowest that I 
love thee." Again, in John xvi. 30, his disciples, after 
having witnessed a display of his wisdom, exclaimed 
with one voice, '^Noiv ive are sure that thou Tcnowest 
all things, and needest not that any man should ask 
thee : by this we believe that thou camest forth from 
God.*' Should it be objected, that Christ no where 
approves of the honor w^hich is here done him, by his 
Apostles, I answer, that this is little to the purpose ; 
for the expressions in the above texts declaring that in 
him are all the treasures of wisdom, and that he knows 
all things, must be either true or false. If true, Jesus 
must approve of them ; for he is truth itself, and they 
prove the point for which we plead. If they ^re false , 
they are pregnant with blasphemy ; and if so, the hon- 
or of God, and the salvation of the Apostles made it ne- 
cessary that they should have been sharply reproved. 
What ! shall Christ say to Peter, Get thee behind me, 
Satan!" when he only endeavored to dissuade him 
from going up to Jerusalem, there to suffer ? and shall 
his disciples meet with no rebuke from the humble and 
holy Jesus, when they rob God of his glory and give it 
to another, by ascribing infinite vvisdom, one of the Di- 
vine perfections, to a mere creature ? There is nothing 
so precious as the glory of God, it being the ultimate 
end of all things ; consequently, so far as any thing is 
contrary to it, it must be detestable. But in the pas- 
sages before us the Apostles not only rob God of his glo- 
ry, by ascribing one of his perfections to a mere crea- 
ture, as Jesus Christ must be if he is not God, but if 
their assertions that Christ knew all things be false, 
they must have been guilty of hlasphemy. Therefore 
both the glory of God and the salvation of the Apos- 
tles required that the Saviour should have corrected 
them, if in an error. But Jesus did not correct them. 



DIVINITY OF CHRIST 



117 



therefore they were not mistaken ; and Jesus Christ must 
know all things. 

It is^ however, urged that the passage above men- 
tioned, declaring that Christ knows all things, cannot 
prove his omniscience, without proving that Christians 
are omniscient also ; for John says to his brethren, Ye 
have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all 
things." 1 John ii. 20. In reply to this, w^e would say 
that with the same propriety we might endeavor to dis- 
prove the omniscience of the Father. The Bible cer- 
tainly gives us to understand that God knows all things, 
but this cannot prove that he does without proving that 
Christians are infinite in v/isdom ; for John says to some 
of them, ^' But ye have an unction from the Holy One, 
and ye know all things.*' Who does not see that our 
opponents, in order to maintain their position, have ei- 
ther to deny the wisdom of Deity, or else contend that 
Christians are equal with him in knowledge ? If they 
attempt to escape from this dilemma by saying that the 
proposition, and ye know all things," is limited in the 
text quoted from 1 John, they then give up the whole 
force of their argument, founded upon it, against the 
omniscience of the Saviour. That this proposition is 
limited in the text from 1 John must be admitted, unless 
we can suppose that Christians are as wise as God, a 
doctrine for which our opponents will not contend. But 
there can be no such reason given for limiting the 
knowledge of our Saviour ; for the orthodox doctrine 
is that he is God. 

Unitarians, however, urge against this ascription of 
" infinite knowledge to our Lord, iMark xiii. 32 : ' But 
of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the 
angels which are in heaven, neither the Son. but the 
Father only.' The genuineness of the clause ^ neither 
the Son ' has been disputed, and is not inserted by Gries- 
bach in his text ; there is not, however, sufficient rea- 
son for its rejection, though certainly in the parallel pas- 
gage, Matt. xxiv. 36, ^neither the Son' is not founck 



118 



DIVINITY OF CHPaST. 



' But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the 
angels m heaven ; but my Father only.' We are then 
reduced to this — a number of passages explicitly de- 
clare that Christ knows all things ; there is one which 
declares that the Son did not know ' the day and the 
hour ' of judgment ; again there is a passage which cer- 
tainly implies that even this period was known to Christ ; 
for St. Paul, 1 Tim. vi. 14, speaking of the ' appear- 
ing of our Lord Jesus Christ ' as the universal judge, 
immediately adds, Svhich in his own times shall show 
who is the blessed and only potentate,' &c. The day 
of judgment is called 'his own times.'' or 'his own sea- 
son.' which, in its obvious sense, means the season he 
has himself fixed, since a certain manifestation of him- 
self is in its fullness reserved by him to that period. As 
' the times and the seasons,' also, are said, in another 
place, to be in the Father's own power ;' so by an 
equivalent phrase, they are here said to be in the power 
of the Son. because thev are * his own times.^ Doubt- 
less, then, he knew ' the day and the hour of judg- 
ment.' Now, certainly, no such glaring and direct con^ 
tradiction can exist in the word of truth, as that our 
Lord should know the day of judgment, and, at the 
same time, and in the same sense, not know it. Either, 
therefore, the passage in ]\Iark must admit of an inter- 
pretation which will make it consistent with other pas- 
sages which clearly affirm our Lord's knowledge of all 
things, and consequently of this great day, or these pas- 
sages must submit to such an interpretation as will bring 
them into accordance with that in -Mark. It cannot, 
however, be in the nature of things that texts, which 
clearly predicate an infinite knowledge, should be in- 
terpreted to mean a finite and partial knowledge, and 
this attempt would only establish a contradiction be- 
tween the text and the comment. Their interpretation 
is imperative upon us ; but the text in Mark is capable 
of an interpretation which involves no contradiction or 
absurdity whatever, and which makes it accord with the 



DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 



119 



rest of the Scripture testimony on this subject." ( Wat- 
son.) This interpretation, is found in the fact that the 
clause in the above text, ••' neither the Son,' ' refers ex- 
clusively to the human nature of the Lord ; and " it 
must be granted, that as man he did not know beyond 
the capacities of human and finite understanding ; and 
not what he knew as God : He could not be sup- 
posed to know in this respect thing? not knowable by 
man. any otherwise than as the Divine nature and wis- 
dom thought fit to communicate and impart such knov\'- 
ledge to him. 

Therefore Christ may be said, with respect to his 
human nature and finite understanding, not to know 
the precise time, the day and hour of some future 
events while, as God, in his Divine nature, he was 
infinite in knowledge. 

••' It is, indeed, objected by Unitarians, that this inter- 
pretation of ]\Iark xiii. 3°2, charges our Saviour, if not 
v>-ith direct falsehood, at least with criminal evasion : 
since he could not say, with truth and sincerity, that he 
was ignorant of the day. if he knev" it in any capacity : 
as it cannot be denied that man is immortal, so lonu' as 
he is, in any respect, immortal. The ansvcer to this is, 
that as it may truly be said of the body of man, that it 
is not immortal, though the soul is : so it may. with 
equal truth, be said, that the Son of Alan was ignorant 
of some things, though the Son of God knew every 
thing. It i- not. then, inconsistent with truth and sin- 
cerity for our Lord to deny that he knew what he real- 
ly did know in one capacity, vrhile he vras ignorant of it 
in another. Thus, in one place he says. • Now I am 
no more in the world.' John xvii. 11 ; and in another. 
' \ e have the poor always vuth you : but me ye have 
not always,' jiatt. xxvi. 1 1 ; yet on another occasion, 
he says, • Lo, I am v ith you always,' ^latt. xxviii. -20 ; 
and again, * If a man love me, my Father will love 
him, and we will come unto him and make our abode 
with him/ John xiv. 23. From hence ^ye see that our 



120 



DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 



Lord might, without any breach of sincerity, deny that 
of himself, considered in one capacity, which he could 
not have denied in another. There was no equivo- 
cation in his denying the knowledge of ' that day 
and that hour,' since, with respect to his human na- 
ture, it was most true ; and that he designed it to refer 
alone to his human nature, is probable, because he does 
not say the Son of God was ignorant of that day, but the 
Son, meaning the Son of man, as appears from the 
context, (Matthew xxiv. 37, 39 ; Mark xiii. 26, 34.) 
Thus Mark xiii. 32, which, at first sight, may seem to 
favor the Unitarian hypothesis, is capable of a rational 
and unforced interpretation, consistently with the ortho- 
dox faith. — Holden. 

And that this interpretation is correct, is evident from 
the fact that it is the only one which will reconcile the 
different passages of Scripture relative to our Saviour's 
knowledge ; for in one place it is said that he knows all 
things, while in the text under consideration he is said 
to be ignorant of the day of Judgment. These passa- 
ges, on the principles of our opponents, which deny 
that one of them refers to his Divine and the other to 
his human nature, are directly opposed to and contra- 
dict each other ; and if the Bible contradicts itself, it 
cannot be true. Unitarians must, therefore, admit the 
correctness of the above interpretation, or deny that the 
Scriptures were given by Divine inspiration ; and if the 
Scriptures are not Divinely inspired, why do they 
quote them in defence of their doctrines ? 

IX. Christ is omnipotent. Omnipotent power, ac- 
cording to Grundy, who was a noted Unitarian, is pow- 
er of control over all things." In Phil. iii. 21, the 
Apostle, speaking of Christ, says, Who shall change 
our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his 
glorious body, according to the working whereby he is 
able even to subdue all things unto himself.' It is, 
therefore, evident that Christ is omnipotent, even taking 
an Unitarian definition of omnipotence j for it is express- 



DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 



121 



ly said that he is able to subdue all things unto himself ; 
consequently, he must have power of control over all 
things, which Mr. G. says is omnipotence. 

This corresponds with Isaiah ix. 5 : " His name shall 
be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God.^^ 
The original word here rendered mighty, not only con- 
veys an idea of simple power and strength, but of con- 
quering strength and prevailing power. Thus Christ 
is not only mighty in his energies, but irresistably effica- 
cious and almighty. But it is said that the person here 
spoken of was born — that he was a son given ; from 
which our opponents argue that he cannot be almighty : 
for an almighty being cannot, without the grossest im- 
piety, be said to be either a child born or a son given. 
It should, however, be remembered, that the Prophet is 
here speaking of both the human and Divine nature of 
Jesus Christ. " Unto us a child is born, unto us a son 
is given.'' These words unquestionably refer to the hu- 
man nature in which he was to make his future appear- 
ance. But the following words, his name shall be 
, called the Mighty God," evidently refer to the Divine 
nature. 

That this is a correct view of the subject, is evident 
from the fact that it is the only view that can be taken 
which will reconcile the different parts of the text. 
While if we deny that the Prophet refers both to the 
human and Divine nature of our Lord, we make one 
clause of the text contradict the other ; thereby destroy- 
ing the truth of the Sacred Scriptures. 

It is, however, contended that this is only a prophecy 
setting forth the impiety of those who should presume 
to call our Saviour by this improper name. But if it 
can be shown that he is declared to be almighty by 
other inspired writers, it is presumed that it will clear 
those who believe in his omnipotence from the charge 
of impiety, prove that he is almighty, and establish his 
Divinity. 

In Rev. i. 8, we find the following words of the Sa- 
11 



122 



DIVINITY OF CHRIST* 



viour: ^^I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and 
the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which wasj 
and which is to come, the Almighty This text is not 
presented to us in the language of prophecy, as the one 
quoted from Isaiah, but it is a solemn description of the 
character of Christ in the present tense. A description 
given by Christ himself, while holding converse with his 
servant John in the Island of Patmos, and in this sub- 
lime description of his own character, he declares him- 
self to be Almighty. 

Isaiah was directed to prophecy in the name of the 
Lord, saying, All flesh shall know that I the Lord am 
thy Saviour and thy Redeemer, the Mighty One of 
Jacob," Isaiah xlix. 26. But, Jesus Christ is the Sa* 
viour and Redeemer ; therefore, he is both Jehovah and 
the Mighty One of Jacob, or the Almighty, The 
Psalmist, also, when his heart indited a good matter^ 
and he was speaking of the things touching the king, 
calls upon him as the Mighty One. Gird thy sword 
upon thy thigh, O most Mighty^ with thy glory and thy 
majesty." Again, he says of him in this enraptured 
lano:uaD:e, ^' Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: 
the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre," Psalms 
xlv. 1 — 6. These very words, so expressive of omni- 
potence and absolute Divinity, are, by St. Paul, in the 
first chapter of Hebrews, applied to Christ ; therefore^ 
we cannot be mistaken in asserting that he is Almighty^ 

2. Nor was our Saviour mighty in name or word on- 
ly^ but in deed and in truth. The miracles which were 
wrought by him, bear testimony to his omnipotence. 
All, who are, in the least, acquainted with the history 
of his life, as given by the evangelists, know that at his 
word the dumb was made to speak, the deaf to hear, 
and the blind to see ; the lame forgot his infirmities, and- 
leaped for joy ; the sick man rose from his bed in per- 
fect soundness and sang his praise. The elements were 
also under his control. At his command the wind ceas- 
ed, and there was a great calm. His voice, also, pene- 



DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 



123 



trated the darkness of the tomb^ and roused its inmates 
from the sleep of death : called their bodies from the 
silent grave, and their spirits from the eternal world. 
These works are of such a stupenduous nature, that they 
prove, beyond all contradiction, that Christ is Almighty : 
for it certainly required omnipotent power in order to 
their performance. To say. that these miracles were 
wrought by any thing less than omnipotent power, is to 
say that they were not wrought by the power of God, 
unless we can suppose that God has a power which is 
not omnipotent. But, if God has a power which is not 
almighty, he must have one attribute which is not infi- 
nite, and must, therefore, fail of being an infinite being. 
If, however, these were not wrought by Almighty pow- 
er, or by the power of God, they fail of proving the 
Divine origin of the Christian religion, which is the very 
end for which they were wrought. 

But, to destroy the force of this argument, we are 
told, that the Apostles performed the same miracles, and 
must therefore possess the same power, and if the pos- 
sessing this power, and the performing these works, 
prove that Christ is almighty, the Apostles must be al- 
mighty also. 

In reply to this, it is sufiicient to remind the reader, 
that the apostles did not perform these miracles, like 
their Divine master, in their own name : their lano:uao;e 

y CO 

is, in the name of Jesus of Nazareth, I say unto thee 
arise and walk. This, therefore, destroys the force of 
the above objection, and at the same time, if possible, 
it increases the strength of the argument in favor of the 
position that Jesus Christ is almighty. For it shows, 
conclusively, that he is the source from which the Apos- 
tles derived the power by which they were enabled to 
do these miracles, and that it was in his name, and by 
his power, that they performed them. 

3. That Christ is almighty, is also evident from the 
fact that he is the creator of all things. John i. 3: 
All things were made by him ; and without him was 



124 



DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 



not any thing made that was made." And^ Col. i. 15? 
16, 17 : Who is the image of the invisible God, the 
first-bom of every creature : for by him were all things 
created that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible 
and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or 
principalities, or powers ; all things were created by 
him, and for him ; and he is before all things, and by 
him all things consist.'' Now, if he created all things, 
he not only created the earth in its present form, with 
all its furniture, from the smallest spire of grass, which 
is trodden unheeded beneath our feet, up to the stately 
oak, which has braved the tempest of a hundred years,, 
and from the small animalculae, which hides itself on 
the surface of the polished marble, up to the huge mam- 
moth, whose footsteps shook the earth, together with 
that mighty mass of intellect which has fluttered in the 
human bosom since the formation of man. But, also, 
those numerous worlds and systems of worlds which 
are spread out through the immensity of space, to such 
an amazing distance, that it is probable that there are 
suns in the centre of systems of worlds whose hght has 
not reached us since the first dawn of time, notwith- 
standing light flies svvdfter than the speed of a cannon 
ball. Who, then, wonders that the Psalmist should ex- 
claim, " The heavens declare the glory of God. and 
the firmament sheweth his handiwork." Or that Mil- 
ton, while meditating on the wonders of creation, 
should say, These are thy work, parent of good. Al- 
mighty thine, this universal frame," But his creative 
power does not stop here. Fie also created all the hosts 
of the upper sanctuary, fi'om the spirit of an humble 
Lazarus, up to the tallest seraph who stands before the 
throne. Now, let me inquire, if all this was done with- 
out omnipotent power ; ' such a hypothesis is absurd, 
and carries its own refutation on its very front. There 
are those, however, who deny that omnipotence was ex- 
erted in the work of creation. This position was taken 
in a public debate in which the writer of these pages 



DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 



125 



and the Rev. John Power, were called upon to defend 
the orthodox doctrine against the ca\ils of two preach- 
ers of that class of Unitarians who claim to be called by 
the name of Christians. The argmiient which was 
then advanced to support the position that omnipotent 
power was not exerted in the work of creation, was. that 
if omnipotence was exerted in creation, the creation 
must be infinite, for every effect must be equal to its 
cause. 

To which Mr. Power replied, in his usual conclu- 
sive manner, that if the argument was sound, it would 
either prove that God is not an infinite being, or that 
the creation is indeed infinite. For it is expressly de- 
clared, in Gen. i. 1, that '-in the bednnino; God crea- 
ted the heavens and the earth therefore, God is the 
cause, and if an infinite cause must necessarily produce 
an infinite effect, it follows that if God is infinite, every 
thing which he has created must be infinite also ; con- 
sequently, we have not only an infinite heaven, and an 
infinite earth, but even infinite bugs, bats, and moles. But 
these are not infinite ; therefore, God is not an infinite 
being ; that is, if an infinite cause must produce an infi- 
nite effect. The position was then taken, that although 
God, the creator, was infinite, yet he did not exert his 
infinite power in creation. In reply to this, it was ar- 
gued, that if this was the fact, then, as has been remark- 
ed on the subject of miracles, God has a power which is 
not infinite, and, therefore, must be a finite being ; for 
the moment we attach any thing to him which is not in- 
finite, we strip him of his infinity. We therefore see 
that the above arguments of our opponents, hke many 
others which have been noticed, would, if sound, anni- 
hilate Deity, and leave the Universe without a moral 
governor. 

But it is objected that Christ created officially, or by 
delegation. I answer, this is impossible ; for, as crea- 
tion requires absolute and unlimited power or omnipo- 
11* 



126 



DIVINITTT or (5iitLU1t. 



tence, there can be but one Creator, See this objection 
answered on page 85. 

4. We may now sum up the Scriptural argument in 
favor of the Divine attributes being ascribed by the in- 
spired penmen to our Saviour, with two af his own re- 
markable declarations. The first is John v. 19 : Ver- 
ily, verily, I say unto you, the Son can do nothing of 
himself, but what he seeth the Father do : for what 
things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son like- 
wise." Does the Father exert omnipotent power, or 
exercise infinite wisdom^ so does the Son. Does the 
Father extend through illimitable space, and fill the uni- 
verse with his presence— does he pursue the same 
changeless course through the annals of eternity, the 
same may be said of Jesus Christ ; for whatsoever the 
Father doeth, these doeth the Son likewise." Again,, 
what the Father does is acknowledged by all to be the 
work of God, and proper to no creature ; Jesus does 
whatsoever the Father does, therefore he must possess 
the same attributes, and be clothed with the same na- 
ture. Again, the Son can do nothing but what he sees 
the Father do. But he never sees the Father err or 
change, therefore he can never err or change, but must 
be immutable ; and if immutable, he must be God ; for 
God is the only immutable being. 

But it is said, The Son can do nothing of him« 
self;" and from this it is argued that he is inferior to 
the Father. If, however, those who make this objec^ 
tion would read the text with a little more care they 
would see the fallacy of their argument. It is not said 
that the Son can do nothing of himself, without any 
qualifying term, but the Son can do nothing of himself 
but what he seeth the Father do ; from which it clearly 
follows that he can do whatever he sees the Father do. 
But it is manifestly impossible for any created being to 
do whatever God does. Jesus Christ does, therefore he 
is no created being, but absolutely God, possessing the 
same nature and attributes of the Father^ 



BIVlNITr OF CHRIST. 



127 



We are, however, perfectly willing to admit that 
Christ can do nothing of himself alone. But it by no 
means follows that he is inferior to the Father, any more 
than that the Father is inferior to the Son ; for the Fath- 
er can do nothing without the Son. This is evident 
from the following clause in the text : Vv^hatsoever he 
doeth, these doeth the Son likewise showing that 
the Son is present with the Father in all his works. 

The reason why the Son can do nothing of himself^ 
undoubtedly is, that he is so intimately connected with 
the Father that neither of them can act in a separate 
and independent manner. Therefore Christ very justly 
says, on the one hand, that the Son can do nothing of 
himself," and on the other, that whatsoever the Fath- 
er doeth, these doeth the Son likewise thus showing 
the indissoluble union that exists between them, which 
proves both the doctrine of the Trinity and Divinity of 
Christ. 

A similar declaration of the Saviour is to be found in 
John xvi. 15 : ^-All things that the Father hath are 
mine ; therefore said I, he shall take of mine, and shall 
shew it unto you." Here the Saviour, in the plainest 
possible manner, gives us to understand that he possess- 
es all that belongs to the Father. Is, then, the Father 
in the possession of infinite attributes ? Is he eternal, 
omnipotent, omniscient, immutable, and omnipresent? 
If so, then Jesus Christ must possess all these attributes ; 
for he expressly says, All the Father hath are mine.'' 

We think that we have now established, to the satis- 
faction of every unprejudiced mind, the position that 
Jesus Christ possesses the peculiar attributes of Deity, 
such as, eternal existence, omnipotent power, and infi- 
nite wisdom ; that he is immutable in his nature, and 
that he fills immensity with his presence. Now let us 
inquire what are the Scripture views of God. Do not 
they represent him to us as a being possessing these very 
attributes which we have proved was possessed by 
Christ ? And were an Arian, or Socinian, or any of 



128 



DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 



those modern Semi-Arians, who clami to be distinguish- 
ed by the name of Christians, called upon to describe 
the character or being of God^ would they not readily 
say that he is an eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, and om- 
nipresent being ? Undoubtedly they would ; for what 
idea have we of God aside from his attributes ? ^'The 
complex idea," says Mr. Hare, which we have of any 
being is the aggregate of our ideas of its known prop- 
erties." Thus man is known by possessing the distin- 
guishing properties which belong to man. In like man- 
ner, God is known to us as possessing the peculiar attri- 
butes which distinguish him from all other beings. 
These attributes are, eternal existence, omnipotent 
power, infinite wisdom, and unbounded presence. Strip 
him of these peculiar and distinguishing properties or 
attributes, and he is no longer God. And any being 
who possesses these attributes of Deity must be God. 
Jesus Christ possesses them, as we have just proved^ 
therefore he must be God. 

Those who deny the essential Divinity of Christy 
vainly endeavor to evade the force of the above reason- 
ing, by saying that he possessed these attributes by del- 
egation from the Father. But before this theory can 
be established, there are several insurmountable difficul- 
ties to be removed. 

1. If Christ possessed these attributes by delegation 
from the Father, then the Father is no longer God ; for 
it is evident that to be God, he must possess all the dis- 
tinguishing attributes of God. But he cannot now pos- 
sess them if he has given them all to Christ, therefore 
it is evident, upon the above supposition, that he is no 
longer God. Thus we see that the system which would 
give Christ these attributes by delegation from the Fath- 
er, robs the Father of all his glory — strips him of his 
eternal power and Godhead — divests him of all his 
attributes — drives him from his thi-one — and reduces 
him to a level with his creatures ; while, at the same 
time, a creature (for if Christ is not God, he is a creature) 



DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 



129 



ascends the throne — is invested with all the Divine 
attributes — clothed with all the plenitude of omnipotent 
power — and sways the sceptre of the universe. 

Such are the awful conclusions to which this system 
of delegation necessarily drives us. And will men, 
yea, men who profess to be Christian ministers, 
amidst all the relidous lin-ht and dorv of the nineteenth 

O O O J 

century, and with the Bible in their hands, stand up in 
its defence? 

But to render it the more plausible, and to strip it of 
some of its more glarino^ absurdities, it is sometimes 
said that the Father has delegated only a part of his at- 
tributes to the Son — such as his omnipotent power- — 
while he retains the rest himself. But this, instead of 
removing any of the difficulties \vhich attend the theory 
of those modern divines who advocate this system of 
delegation, only serves to sink them still deeper in con- 
fiision, and to develop still clearer the absurdity of their 
cause ; for if the Father has given a part of his attri- 
butes to the Son, it is evident that he is left imperfect, 
and must, therefore, cease to be God ; for to be God, 
he must be perfect, and in the entire possession of each 
and every attribute vvdiich belongs to God. But if he 
has given part of his essential attributes away to Christ, 
it is evident that he cannot now possess them all ; for it 
would be absurd to suppose that he could give away 
any of his attributes, and at the same time retain them 
all himself. It is, therefore, evident that, if the idea 
that the Father has given away a part of the essential 
attributes of his nature be correct, the Father must be 
imperfect ; and if imperfect, he is not God, for God is a 
perfect being. We therefore see that this theory also 
robs the Father, as well as the one which goes before 
it. But it not only robs the Father, but also the Son ; 
for if he has only a part of the Divine attributes, it is 
evident that he too is an imperfect and finite being : con- 
sequently, according to our opponents, we are left with- 
out a God. For, according to their theory, the Father has 



130 



DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 



given away a part of his attributes, therefore he is im- 
perfect ; Jesus Christ has received but a part of them, 
therefore he is imperfect : and if the Father and the 
Son are both imperfect, neither of them can be God ; 
for, as above remarked, God is a perfect being ; and if 
neither the Father nor the Son be God, and the Holy 
Ghost is nothing but an attribute, or, what is worse, an 
unintelhgent agent, then we are left without a God, con- 
sequently without a moral governor of the universe. 
May we not, then, apply to the advocates of this system 
of delegation the following words of the poet : 

"They labored hard; O, labor worse than nought! 
And toiled with dark and crooked reasoning, 
To make the fair and lovely earth, which dwelt 
In sight of heaven, a cold, and fatherless, 
Forsaken thing, that wandered on, forlorn, 
Undestined, uncompassioned, miupheld; 
A vapor eddying in the whir] of chance, 
And soon to vanish everlastingly." 

But w^e are told, in the next place, that, notwith- 
standing the Father has given a part or all of his attri- 
butes to Jesus Christ, he is still perfect, because he can 
give them away, and at the same time retain them all 
himself. In answer to this, I would say, in the first 
place, that this is a contradiction in terms. It is mani- 
festly absurd to suppose that God could give any of his 
attributes to a creature, however hio^h that creature mio;ht 
stand in the scale of being ; and much more absurd to 
suppose that he could give them away, and at the same 
time retain them all himself. 

But allowing all that the advocates of this theory 
contend for, grant that the Father has delegated all of 
his attributes to his Son, and still retains them all him- 
self, still there is another difficulty to be removed, a 
difficulty which no one who denies the Divinity of 
Christ can possibly surmount, and one which effectually 
destroys this system of delegation. If, as the advocates 



BIVINXTY OF CHRIST. 



131 



of this theory contend, the Father has delegated his 
attributes to Jesus Christ, and at the same time retains 
them all himself, and the doctrine of the Trinity be not 
true — if, as our opponents contend, Jesus Christ does 
not exist in the Godhead with the Father, but is a dis- 
tinct and separate being, then it miust follow that there 
are two Gods : for there are two separate and indepen- 
dent beings, each perfect in his nature, possessing all 
the distino-uishino- attributes of the Divine Beinor. But 
the Scripture doctrine is, Hear, O Israel, the Lord 
our God is one Lord I am the Lord, and there is 
none else ; there is no God besides me.'' We are, 
therefore, compelled to reject this theory that Christ 
possessed the Divine attributes by delegation, as un- 
scriptural and false. 

But the Divine attributes cannot be possesed with- 
out the Divine nature. To men," says Hare, who 
are but finite beings, God can give a beginning, depen- 
dent, finite, and stable existence;'' and the same may 
be said of all created beings. He can make them 
knowing, wise and powerful. But (with reverence) he 
cannot give to them his infinite perfections. Their 
minds are finite, and incapable of infinitude. If Jesus 
Christ was a man or some super-angelic being, however 
highly exalted, he could not possess the Divine perfec- 
tions : because, if he is anything less than God, he must 
be a finite being. To possess the infinite perfections of 
Deity, he must possess his infinite nature. Can a being 
who began to exist be without beginning," or from 
everlasting ? Can a being who is necessarily limited 
be omnipresent ? Can any thing less than an infinite 
mind know all things ? Or can any thing but an un- 
controllable and all-controlling mind be omnipotent? 
or anything but an all perfect mind be immutable ? 
Th-ere is an infinite distance between God and the great- 
est of his creatures. To talk, therefore, of investing a 
creature wdth infinite attributes, would be as preposter- 
ous as to talk of suspending a w^orld upon an egg shell 



132 



DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 



against the power of gravity in the solar system. But 
Jesus Christ possesses these infinite attributes of Deity, 
therefore can be no creature, but truly a Divine being, 
for there can be no Divinity more proper than that 
which possesses Divine perfections. 

When Unitarians are not immediately engaged in 
impugning the Divinity of the Saviour, they can per- 
ceive the truth of these remarks. Thus, Mi\ Grun- 
dy, after enumerating the supposed attributes of the 
Devil, says. ^' These attributes are all Divine, and if 
there actually be a being possessing these attributes, that 
being ought to be a Deity.'' 

There is. however, one passage of sacred writ which 
is thought by our opponents to favor their views ; this is 
Matt, xxviu. 18 : All power is given unto me in hea- 
ven and earth."' But this text, instead of aiding Uni- 
tarians in their efforts to destroy the doctrine of the su- 
preme Deity of Christ, is a strong argument in its de- 
fence. For if all povrer in heaven and earth is given 
to him, he musr be in the possession of all power, and 
if in the possession of all power, there can be no pow- 
er which he does not possess : consequently, he must be 
almighty, a.nd if almighty he must be God, for God is 
the only almighty being. And if he is God, or a being 
possessing almighty power, he must exist with the Fa- 
ther and Holy Spirit in the undivided Trinity, and with 
them constitute but one being — one supreme Jehovah. 
If this be not admitted, then there must be two sepa- 
rate and independent beings, each in the possession of 
almighty power ; therefore, neither of them can be su- 
preme, for a supreme being is one whose power excells 
all others. And if neither of them are supreme, then 
neither of them can be God, for God is a supreme 
being. 

The Rev. Mr. Harmon, who wrote in defence of the 
Trinity, in opposition to Mr. "vlillard, author of the True 
Messiah, a work highly esteemed by our opponents, 
thus remarks on the passage under consideration : If 



DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 



133 



Jesus Christ was not the true God, and all power was 
given into his hands, then he possessed all the powers of 
the self-existent God, According to IMr. M.'s notion/' 
that Christ is not God, ^- he must either have possessed 
it alone and left the Father destitute of all power, or 
there were two self-existent Gods at the same time.'' 
To which Mr. Millard answers, Is it possible that Mr. 
H. is so short-sighted as to suppose his readers will not 
see that he is raising his objections against Scripture ? 
Christ said, • all power is given unto me in heaven and 
in earth,' and Mr. H, intimates that this cannot be, or it 
would leave the Father without any power, or suppose 
there were two self-existent Gods at the same time. It 
is to be hoped he will settle this controversy with the 
Son of God, before he meets him in judgment." 
, Although Mr. Millard so severely censures Mr. Har- 
mon in the above quotation, yet, in the very next para- 
graph, he is guilty of the same offence. He says, while 
speaking of the passage above quoted, Relative to 
the extent of power given to Christ, it is highly proba- 
ble to me, that it was all power in heaven and earth, re- 
lating to his kingdom or church." May we not then 
inquire of him, as he does of Mr. Harmon, is it possi- 
ble that he is so short-sighted as to suppose his readers 
will not see he is raising his objections against Scripture^ 
and not against Mr. H. or any other Trinitarian ? 
Christ said all power is given unto him in heaven and in 
earth, and Mr. M. intimates that this is not so, and 
limits his power to the government of his Church, thus 
contradicting the Saviour. It is to be hoped that he 
will settle this controversy with the Son of God, before 
he meets him in judgment." 

But if our opponents believe the power here alluded 
to is but a limiited power, w^hy is this passage quoted to 
prove that Christ possesses omnipotent power by dele- 
gation from the Father ? Or why is it brought forward 
to show that Trinitarians raise their objections against 
Scripture, when they object to this system of delega- 
12 



134 



DitlNITY OF CHRIST* 



tion ? If, as Mr. Millard says, this power extends only 
to the church, it certainly must be a limited power, and 
therefore might have been given to his human nature, 
while in his Divine nature he received nothing. And if 
the text includes all power, we see no difficulty in ma- 
king this application of it. For in Mm dvjelt all the 
fullness of the Godhead bodily." God was in 
Christ" imparting omnipotent power to the humanity in 
a similar manner to that in which the soul of men im- 
parts energy to the body. But if all power was given 
to Christ as a man, our opponents inquire with much 
triumph, why cannot it be given to any other man ? 
The reason is obvious. In no other man or created be- 
ing does this fullness of the Godhead dwell. I, how- 
ever, wish the reader to remember, that those who deny 
the supreme Deity of Christ, do not believe that the 
power referred to in the text is omnipotent power ; con-^ 
sequently, their theory that Christ possessed this or any 
other attribute by delegation from his Father, can de* 
]?ive no support from this passage. The position, then, 
which we have taken, that Christ possessed all the Di- 
vine attributes as the inherent attributes of his own na- 
ture, remains untouched. Being supported by numer- 
ous and overwhelming arguments, it effectually destroys 
the Unitarian hypothesis and establishes the supreme Di^ 
vinity of our blessed Saviour, beyond all possibility of 
contradiction. 

X. Christ is an object of religious worship, and there^ 
fore must be God, for our Saviour says, " thou shalt 
worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou 
serve." " Instances of falling down at the feet of Jesus 
and worshipping him are so frequent in the Gospel, that 
it is not necessary to select the instances which are so 
familiar ; and though we allow that the word worship is 
sometimes used to express that lowly reverence with 
which, in the East, it has been always customary to sa- 
lute persons considered as greatly superior, and espe- 
cially rulers and sovereigns, it is yet the same word 



DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 135 



which, in a great number of instances, is used to express 
the worship of the Supreme God. We are, then, to 
collect the intention of the act of worship, whether de- 
signed as a token of profound civil respect, or of real 
and Divine adoration, from the circumstances of the in- 
stances on record. When a leper comes and ' wor- 
ships ' Christ, professing to beheve that he had the 
power of healing diseases, and that in himself, which 
power he could exercise at his will, all which he express- 
es by saying, ^ Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make 
me clean,' we see a Jew retaining that faith of the Jew- 
ish church in its purity which had been corrupted among 
so many of his nation, that the Messiah was to be a 
Divine Person ; and, viewing our Lord under that char- 
acter, he regarded his miraculous powers as original and 
personal, and so hesitated not to worship him. Here, 
then, is a case in which the circumstances clearly show 
that the worship was religious and supreme. When the 
man who had been cured of blindness by Jesus, and 
who had defended his prophetic character before the 
council, before he knew that he had a higher character 
than that of a prophet^ was met in private by Jesus, and 
instructed in the additional fact, that he was 'the Son 
OF God,' he v\wshipped him. ' Jesus heard, that they 
had cast him out, and when he had found him, he said 
unto him. Dost thou believe on the Son of God ? He 
answered and said. Who is he. Lord, that I might be- 
lieve on him ? And Jesus said unto him. Thou hast 
both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee. And 
he said. Lord, I believe ; and he worshipped him :' — 
worshipped him, be it observed, under his character 
^ Son of God,' a title which was regarded by the Jews 
as implying actual Divinity, and which the man under^ 
stood to raise Jesus far above the rank of a mere pro- 
phet. The worship paid by this man must, therefore, in 
its intention, have been supreme, for it was offered to an 
acknowledged Divine Person, the Son of God. When 
llie disciples, fully yielding to the demonstration of our 



136 



DIVINITY OF C HEIST. 



Lord's Messiahshlp, arising out of a series of splendid 
miracles, recognised him also under his personal char- 
acter, ' they came and worshipped him, saying, Of a 
truth thou art the Son of God !' Matt. xiv. 33. When 
Peter, upon the miraculous draught of fishes, ' fell at his 
feet,' and said, ^ Depart from me, for I am a sinflil man. 
O Lord,' these expressions themselves mark as strongly 
the awe and apprehension which is produced in the 
breast of a sinful man, when he feels himself in the pre- 
sence of Divinity itself, as when Isaiah exclaims, in his 
vision of the Divine glory, ' Wo is me, for I am undone^ 
for I am a man of unclean lips, and dwell among a peo- 
ple of unclean hps, for mine eyes have seen the King, 
the Lord of Hosts.' 

But to proceed with instances of worship subsequent 
to our Lord's resurrection and ascension : ' He was part- 
ed from them, and carried up into heaven, and they 
WORSHIPPED him, and returned to Jerusalem with great 
joy,' Luke xxiv. 51, 52. Here the act must necessari- 
ly have been one of 'Divine adoration, since it was per* 
fomied after ' he was parted from them,' and cannot be 
resolved into the customary token of personal respect 
paid to superiors. This was always done in the pre- 
sence of the superior : never by the Jews in his absence^ 

When the Apostles were assembled to fill up the 
place of Judas, the lots being prepared, they pray, 
' Thou, Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show 
w^hether of these men thou hast chosen.' That this 
prayer is addressed to Christ is blear, from its being his 
special prerogative to choose his own disciples, who, 
therefore, styled themselves 'Apostles,' not of the Fa- 
ther, but ' of Jesus Christ.' Here, then,, is a direct act 
of worship, because an act of prayer : and our Lord is 
addressed as he who ' knows the hearts of all men.' 
Nor is this more than he himself claims in the Revela« 
tion, ' And all the churches shall know that I am he that 
searcheth the reins and the heart.' 

When Stephen, the protomartyr, w^as stoned, tke 



BIVINITY OF CHRIST* 



137 



writer of the Acts of the Apostles records two instan- 
ces of prayer offered to our Lord by this man ' full of 
the Holy Ghost/ and therefore, according to this decla- 
ration, under Divine inspiration. ' Lord Jesus ! re- 
ceive MY SPIRIT ' Lord, lay not this sin to 
THEIR CHARGE !' In the former he acknowledges 
Christ to be the disposer of the eternal states of men : 
in the latter, he acknowledges him to be the governor 
and judge of men, ha\dng power to remit, pass by, or 
visit their sins. All these are manifestly Divine acts, 
. which sufficiently show that St. Stephen addressed his 
prayers to Christ as God." 

Unitarians, however, tell us that the case of Stephen 
is an inconsiderable instance, and therefore so much 
stress ought not to be laid upon it. But why is it in- 
considerable ? Is it because it was only an ejaculation ? 
Ejaculations are often prayers of the most fervid kind ; 
the most expressive of self-abasement and adoration. 
Is it for its brevity that it is inconsiderable ? What, 
then, is the precise length of words which is requisite to 
make a prayer an act of worship ? Was this petition 
preferred on an occasion of distress, on which a Divini- 
ty might be naturally invoked ? Was it a petition for 
a succour which none but a Divinity could grant ? If 
this was the case, it w^as surely an act of w^orship. Is 
the situation of the worshipper the circumstance which 
lessens the authority of his example ? They suppose, 
perhaps, some consternation of his faculties, arising from 
distress and fear. The history justifies no such supposi- 
tion. It describes the utterance of the final prayer, as 
a deliberate act of one who knew his situation, and 
possessed his understanding. After praying for himself, 
he kneels down to pray for his persecutors : and such 
was the composure with w^hich he died, although the 
manner of his death was the most tumultuous and terri- 
fying, that, as if he had expired quietly upon his bed, the 
sacred historian says, that ^^he fell asleep." If Unita- 
rians, therefore, would insinuate, that St. Stephen was 
12* 



138 



DIVINITY or CHRisf . 



not himself, when he sent forth this short ejaculatoiT 
address to Christ, the history refutes then:. If he was 
himself, they cannot justify his prayer to Christ, while 
they deny that Christ is God. upon any piinciple that 
might not equally justify men m praying to the blessed 
Stephen. If St. Stephen, in the full possession of his 
faculties, prayed to him who is no God. Y\4iy do we re- 
proach the Rcraanist. when he chants the litany of his 
saints : 

St. Paul also prays to Christ, conjointly with the 
Father, in behalf of the Thessalonians. ^ Now om^ 
Lord Jesus Christ hi:.iself. and God. even our Fa- 
ther, which hath loved iis. and hath given us everlasting 
consolation, and good hope through grace, comfort your 
hearts, and establish you in every good u'orh\' 2 Thess.^ 
ii. 16. 17 . In like manner he mvokes our I^ord to grant 
his spiritual presence to Timothy : • The Lord Jesus be 
with thy spirit.' '2 Tim. iv. •2-2. The invoking of Christ 
is, indeed, adduced by St. Paul as a distinctive charac- 
teristic of Christians, so that among all the primitive 
churches this practice must liave been univei-sal. * Unto 
the chuiX'h of God which is at Corinth, to them that 
are sanctihed In Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with 
all that IX EVERY place call upox the name of Je- 
sus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours.' 1 Cor. i. 2. 
' It appears, from the expression here and elsewhere 
used, that to invocan the name of our Lord Jesus 
Christ was a practice characterizinir and distinguishing 
Christians from inhdels." — (Dr, Benson,) Thus St. 
Paul is said, before his conversion, to have had • authori- 
ty from the chief priests to bind all that call upon 
THY XA]vrE.' In the Revelation, too. we find St. John 
worshipping Christ. • falling at his feet as one dead.' 
St. Paul also declares • that at the name of Jesus every 
knee shall bow/ which, in Scripture language, signifies 
an act of religious worship. • For this cause I bow ray 
Icnees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.' 

But this homage and adoiution of Christ is not con- 



DmNITY OF cumsT. 



139 



fined to men ; it is practised among heavenly beings* 
^•And again, when he bringeth in the first-begotten into 
the world, he saith, And let all the angels of Gob 
WORSHIP HIM." The Apostle recurs here to a former 
assertion of his, that Jesus h higher than the angels^ 
that he is none of those who can be called ordinary 
angels or messengers, but one of the most extraordinary 
kind, and the object of worship to all the angels of God. 
To worship any creature is idolatry, and God resents 
idolatry more than any other evil. Jesus Christ can be 
no creature, else the angels who worship him would be^ 
must be guilty of idolatry, and God the author of that 
idolatry, who commanded those angels to worship 
Christ. 

These words, " and let all the angels of God worship 
him, are taken from Psalm xcvii. 7, where they are 
translated by the Septuagint, worship him. all ye angels. 
This Psalm the Apostle, therefore, understood of Christy 
and in this the old Jewish interpreters agree with him ; 
and though he is not mentioned in it by any of his usual 
Old Testament titles, except that of Jehovah, it clearly 
predicts the overthrow of idolatry by the introduction 
of the kingdom of this Jehovah. It follows, then, that^ 
as idolatry was not overthrovvu by Judaism, but by the 
kingdom of Christ, it is Christ, as the head and author 
of this kingdom, of whom the Psalmist speaks, and 
whom he sees receiving the worship of the angels of 
God upon its introduction and establishment. Thisj 
also, agrees with the words by which the Apostle intro- 
duces the quotation. ''And again, when he bringeth 
in the first-begotten into the world, the habitable worlds 
which intimates that it was upon some solemn occasion^ 
when engaged in some solemn act, that the angels were 
commanded to worship him, and this is represented in 
the xcvii. Psalm as the establishment of his kingdom. 

The argument of the Apostle is thus made clear ; he 
proves Christ superior to angels, and therefore Divine^ 
because angels themselves are commanded " to worship 



140 



DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 



him," Nor is this the only prophetic psahn in which 
the rehgious worship of Messiah is predicted. The 
72d Psahii, alone, is full of this doctrine. They shall 
FEAR thee as long as the sun and moon endure.'' All 
kings shall fall down (or, avorship) before him ; all 
nations shall serve him.'' Prayer shall be made 
ever for (or, to) him, and daily shall he be praised." 

Finally, as to the direct worship of Christ, the book 
of Revelation, in its scenec representations, exhibits 
him as, equally with the Father, the object of the wor- 
ship of angels and of glorified samts ; and, in chapter 
5th, places every creature in the universe, the inhabit- 
ants of hell only excepted, in prostrate adoration at his 
footstool. ^*'And every creature which is in heaven, and 
on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the 
sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, 
and honor, and glory, and power, be unto him that sit- 
teth upon the throne, axd unto the La^ib for ever and 
ever." — Watson. 

All parts of the creation, animate and inanimate, 
are represented here, by that figure of speech called 
prosopopoeia or personification, as giving praise to the 
Lord Jesus, because by him all things were created. 
We find the whole creation gives precisely the same 
praise, and in the same terms, to Jesus Christ, who is un- 
doubtedly meant here by the Lamb that was slain as they 
give to God who sits upon the throne. Now if Jesus 
Christ were not properly God, this would be idolatry, as 
it would be o-ivinor to the creature what belono:s to the 
Creator. — Clarice. 

To these instances are to be added all the doxolo- 
gies to Christ, in common with the Father and the Holy 
Sphit, and all the benedictions made in his name in com- 
mon with theirs ; for all these are forms of worship. 
The first consist of ascriptions of equal and Divine 
honors, with grateful recognitions of the Being address- 
ed, as the author of benefits received ; the second are a 
solemn blessing of others in the name of God; and 



DIVINITY OF CHPaST, 



141 



were derived from the practice of the Jewish priests and 
the still older patriarchs, who blessed others in the name 
of Jehovah, as his representatives^ 

Of the first, the following may be given, as a few 
out of many instances. The Lord shall deliver me 
from every evil work, and will preserve me to his heav- 
enly kingdom : to whom be glohy for ever and ever/'' 
2 Tim. iv. 18. But grow in grace, and in the knowl- 
edge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ : to him be 
GLORY both now and forever. Amen." -2 Pet. iii. 13. 
'^Unto him that loved u^. and Avashed us from our sins 
in his own blood, and hath made us kings and priests 
unto God and his Father ; to him be glory and domin- 
ion for ever and ever. Amen." Rev. i. 5. 6, •'•'When 
we consider the great difference between these doxolo- 
gies and the commendations but sparingly given in the 
Scriptures to mere men. the serious and reverential 
manner in which they are introduced, and the superla- 
tive praise they convey, so far surpassing what humani- 
tj can deserve, we cannot but suppose that the being to 
whom they refer is really Divine. The ascription of 
eternal glory and everlasting dominion, if addressed to 
any creature, however exalted, would be idolatrous and 
profane.*' Of benedictions, the commencement and 
conclusion of several of the epistles furnish instances, 
so regular in their form, as to make it clearly appear that 
the Apostles and the priests of the Xew Testam.ent 
constantly blessed the people ministerially in the name 
of Christ; as one of the blessed Trinity. This consid- 
eration alone shows that the benedictions are not, as 
Unitarians would take them, to be considered as curso- 
ry expressions of good will. ••'Grace to you, and 
peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.'^ 
This, with little variation, is the common form of salu- 
tation ; and the usual parting benediction is, The 
grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and 
the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all.'' 
In answer to the Unitarian perversion, that these are 



142 



DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 



mere wishes," it has been well and wisely observed, 
that this objection overlooks, or notices very slightly, 
the point on which the w^hole question turns, Xh^ nature 
of the blessings sought, and the qualities which they 
imply in the Person as whose donation they are delib- 
erately desired. These blessings are not of that kind 
which one creature is competent to bestow upon an- 
other. They refer to the judicial state of an accounta- 
ble being before God, to the remission of moral ofFen- 
aes, to the production and preservation of certain mental 
qualities which none can efficaciously and immediately 
give but he who holds the dominion of human minds 
and feeling, and to the enjoyments of supreme and end- 
less felicity. They are grace, mercy, and peace, Grace j 
the free favor of the Eternal Majesty to those who have 
forfeited every claim to it, such favor as in its own na- 
ture and in the contemplation of the suplicant, is the 
sole and effective cause of deliverance from the great- 
est evils, and acquisition of the greatest good. Mercy, 
the compassion of infinite goodness, conferring its rich- 
est bestowments of holiness and happiness on the ruin- 
ed, miserable, and helpless. Peace, the tranquil and 
delightful feeling which results from the rational hope 
of possessing these enjoyments. These are the high- 
est blessings that Omnipotent Benevolence can give, or 
a dependent nature receive. To desire such blessingSj 
either in the mode of direct address or in that of preca- 
tory wish, from any being who is not possessed of om- 
nipotent goodness, would be, not ' innocent and proper/ 
but sinful and absurd in the highest degree. When, 
therefore, we find every Apostle whose epistles are ex- 
tant, pouring out his ' expressions of desire,' with the 
utmost simplicity and energy, for these blessings, as pro- 
<^eeding from ' our Lord Jesus Christ,' equally with 
' God our Father,' we cannot but regard it as the just 
and necessary conclusion that Christ and the Father are 
one in the perfection which originates the highest bless* 



DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 



143 



ings, and in the honor due for the gift of those 
blessings." 

So clearly does the New Testament show that su- 
preme worship was paid to Christ, as well as to the 
Father ; and the practice obtained, as a matter of course, 
as a matter quite undisputed in the primitive Church, 
and has so continued, in all orthodox Churches to this 
day. Thus heathen writers represented the first Chris- 
tians as worshippers of Christ ; and. as for the practice 
of the primitive Church, it is not necessary to quote 
passages from the fathers, which are so well known, or 
so easily found in all books which treat on this subject. 
It is sufficient evidence of the practice, that when, in 
the fourth century, the Arians taught, that our Lord was 
a super-angelic creature only^ they departed not, in the 
instance of worship, from the homage paid to him in 
the universal Church ; but continued to adore Christ. 
On this ground the orthodox justly branded them with 
idolatry ; and, in order to avoid the force of the charge, 
they invented these sophistical distinctions as to supe- 
rior and inferior worship, \\'hicli the Papists, in later 
times, introduced, in order to excuse the worship of 
saints and angels. (Watson.) And in this they have 
been followed by many modern Unitarians, especially 
by that class who call themselves Christians, as will 
appear from Mr. milliard's True Messiah, pp. 171, 
where he uses the following language : '•' That I worship 
the Son of God, is a fact : yet I do not worship him as 
the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.'' 

But were this distinction founded in truth, it would be 
of but little service to the cause, in defence of which 
it is applied ; because it has already been shown that 
Christ received supreme worship : and in addition to 
what has been said, we would also remark, that he who 
requires us to think of him as we do of the true God^ 
would certainly have us worship him as such. But 
Christ would have us think of him as we do of the true 
God; for he attributes to himself the perfections of 



144 



DIVINITY or CHRIST. 



God, and he claims an equality with him. Consequent- 
ly, he would have us think of him, as we ought to do 
of God. He who speaks of himself, or directs others 
to speak of him as of the true God, would be acknowl* 
edged and worshipped as such. But Christ speaks, 
and would be spoken of by us as the true God. This 
appears from his taking the names, and ascribing to 
himself the works of God. If not, why does he as- 
sume such names, why does he declare that he perform- 
ed such works as are proper to God, if he would not 
have us speak of him as God ? What ! shall he speak 
of himself as God— shall he assert that he created all 
things, and performed the works of God — and, after all, 
be unwilling that z^'e should speak of him as God? 
Absurd to imagine, impossible to prove. He w^ho re- 
quires we should do that for him which we cannot law- 
fully do for any but the true God, expects to be wor- 
shipped as such. But Christ requires us to do that for 
him, which \ve ought not to do for any but God. This 
appears from the fact that we are bound to love God 
above ail things : consequently, an affection so ardent, 
and a duty so high, are due to none but God. We 
ought, however, to love Jesus above all things ; to love 
him more than our lives, which, of all things in the 
world, are the dearest to us. He requires that we should 
suffer martyrdom for his sake ; and by so doing, enjoins 
a duty which we do not, which we cannot owe to any 
but God. None of the Prophets, nor any of the Apos- 
tles ever said, He that forsaketh not wife and chil- 
dren, and houses and lands, yea, and his own life, for 
my sake, is not worthy of me." Supreme worship was, 
therefore, paid to Christ. 

This will also appear evident if we take into consid- 
eration the fact that there is nothing in the Sacred Scip- 
tures to support the doctrine of superior and inferior 
worship. We often read of prayer, but there is not a 
syllable about absolute and relative, supreme and infe- 
rior prayer. We are commanded to pray fervently and 



DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 



145 



incessantly ; but never sovereignly or absolutely. We 
have no rules left us about raisin or lowerino^ our inten- 
tions, in proportion to the dignity of the objects. Some 
instructions to this purpose might have been highly use- 
ful ; and it is very strange^ that, in a matter of so great 
importance^ no directions should be given, either in 
Scripture, or, at least, in antiquity, how to regulate our 
intentions and meanings, with metaphysical exactness ; 
so as to make our worship either high, higher, or high- 
est of all, as occasion should require. 

But a greater objection against this doctrine is, that 
the whole tenor of Scripture runs counter to it. This 
may be understood, in part, from what we have obser- 
ved. To make it yet plainer, we will now take into 
consideration such acts and instances of worship as are 
laid down in Scripture, whether under the old or new 
dispensation. 

Sacrifice was one instance of worship required under 
the law ; and it is said, He that sacrificeth unto any 
god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly de- 
stroyed,'' Ex. xxii. 20. Now suppose any person, con- 
sidering with himself that only absolute and sovereign 
sacrifice w^as appropriated to God, by this law, should 
have o:one and sacrificed to other gods, and have been 
convicted of it before the judges — the apology he 
must have made for it must have run thus : Gentle- 
men, though I have sacrificed to other gods, yet, I hope 
you '11 observe that I did it not absolutely : I meant not 
any absolute or supreme sacrifice, (which is all that the 
law forbids,) but relative and inferior only. I regulated 
my intentions with all imaginable care, and my esteem 
with the most critical exactness : I considered the other 
gods whom I sacrificed to as inferior only, and infinitely 
so, reserving all sovereign sacrifice to the supreme God 
of Israel." This, or the like apology, must have 
brought off the criminal, with some applause for his 
acuteness, if the doctrine of superior and inferior wor- 
ship be true. Unitarians must either admit this, or be 
13 



146 



DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 



content to say that not only absolute supreme sacrifice^ 
but all sacrifice was^ by law, appropriated to God only. 

Another instance of worship is, making of vows, re* 
ligious vows. We find as little appearance of the above 
distinction here as in the fomier case. We read noth- 
ing of sovereign and inferior, absolute and relative vows ; 
that we should imagine supreme vows to be appropriate 
to God, inferior permitted to angels or idols, or to any 
creature. 

Swearing is another instance much of the same kind 
with the foregoing. Swearing by God's name is a plain 
thing, and well understood, but if Unitarians tell us of sov- 
ereign and inferior swearing, according to the inward res- 
pect or intention they have, in proportion to the dignity 
of the person by whose name they swear, it must sound 
perfectly new to us. All swearing which comes short 
in its respect, or falls below sovereign, will, we are afi'aid, 
be little better than profaneness. 

Such being the case in respect to the acts of reli- 
gious v\-orship already mentioned, I now ask, what is 
there so pecuhar in the case of prayer and adoration, 
that they should not be thought of the same kind with 
the other ? Why should not absolute and relative 
prayer and prostration appear as absurd as absolute and 
relative sacrifice, vows, oaths, or the like? They are 
acts and instances of religious worship like the other; 
appropriated to God in the same manner, and by the 
same laws, and upon the same grounds and reasons. 
Unitarians Imagine that acts of religious worship are to 
derive their signification and quality fi'om the intention 
and meaning of the worshippers, whereas, the very 
reverse of it is the truth. Their meaning and signifi- 
cation is fixed and determined by God himself; and, 
therefore, we are never to use them with any other 
meaning, under peril of profaneness or idolatry. God 
has not left us at liberty to fix what sense we please 
upon religious worship, to render it high or low, abso- 
lute or relative, at discretion, supreme when offered to 



DIVINITS" OF CHRIST. 



147 



God, and if to others, inferior : as when to angels, or 
saints, or images, in suitable proportion. No, religion 
was not made for metaphysical heads only, such as 
might nicely distinguish the several degrees and eleva- 
tions of respect and honor among many objects. The 
short and plain way, which (in pity to human infirmity, 
and to prevent confusion) it has pleased God to take 
with us, is to make all religious worship his own : and 
so it is sovereign of course. This I take to be the Scrip- 
tural as well as only reasonable account of the object 
of worship. We need not concern ourselves (it is but 
vain to pretend to it) about determining the sense and 
meaning of religious worship. God himself has taken 
care of it ; and it is already determined to our hahds. 
It means, whether we will or no, it means, by Divine 
institution and appointment, the Divinity, the suprema- 
cy, the sovereignty of its object. To misapply those 
marks of dignity, those appropriate ensigns of Divine 
majesty ; to compliment any creature with them, and 
thereby to make common what God has made proper, is 
to deify the works of God's hands, and to serve the 
,creature instead of the Creator, God blessed for ever. — 
Waterland. 

Let us now consider the religious principles which 
were held by the Apostles and followers of our Saviour, 
in order to determine whether they could have worship- 
ped him with any thing less than supreme worship. 

They were Jews ; and Jews of an age in which their 
nation had long shaken off its idolatrous propensities, 
and which was distinguished by its zeal against all wor- 
ship, or expressions of religious trust and hope being 
directed, not only to false gods, (to idols,) but to crea- 
tures. The great principle of the law was, ' Thou 
shalt have no other gods before (or, besides) me.' It 
was, therefore, commanded by Moses, ' Thou shalt fear 
the*Lord thy God, and him shalt thou serve;' which 
words are quoted by our Lord in his temptation, when 
solicited to worship Satau^ so as to prove that to fear 



148 



DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 



God and to serve him are expressions which signify 
worship, and that all other beings but God are excluded 
from it. ' Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and 
liim only shalt thou serve.' The argument, too, in the 
quotation, is not that Satan had no right to receive wor- 
ship because he was an evil spirit ; but that, whatever 
he might be, or whoever should make that claim, God 
only is to be worshipped. By this, also, we see that 
Christianity made no alteration in Judaism, as to the 
article of doctrine, for our Lord himself here adopts it 
as his own principle ; he quotes it from the writings of 
Moses, and so transmitted it, on his own authority, to his 
followers. Accordingly, we find the Apostles teaching 
and practising this as a first principle of their rehgion. 
St. Paul (Rom. i. 21 — 25) charges the heathen with 
not glorifying God when they 1{new him, and worship- 
ping and serving ^ the creature more than (or, besides) 
the Creator, who is blessed for ever.' ^ Wherein the 
Apostle,' says Waterland, ' plainly intimates, that the 
Creator only is to be served, and that the idolatry of 
the Heathens lay in their worshipping of the creature. 
He does not blame them for giving sovereign or abso- 
lute worship to creatures, they could scarcely be so silly 
as to imagine there could be more than one supreme 
God ; but for giving any worship to them at all, sover- 
eim or inferior.' Ao-ain : when he mentions it as one of 
the crimes of the Galatians, previous to their conver- 
sion to Christianity, that they ' did service unto them 
which by nature were no gods,' he plainly intimates, that 
no one has a title to religious service but he who is by 
nature God ; and, if so, he himself could not worship 
or do service to Christ, unless he believed him to pos- 
sess a natural and essential divinity. 

The practice of the Apostles, too, was in strict ac- 
cordance with this principle. Thus, when worship was 
offered to St. Peter, by Cornelius, who certainly did not 
take him to be God, he forbade it : so also Paul and 
Barnabas forbade it at Lystra, with expressions of hor- 



DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 



149 



ror. when offered to them. Ad eminent instance is re- 
corded, also, of the excKision of all creatureSj however 
exalted, from this honor, in Rev. xix. 10, where the an- 
gel refuses to receive so much as the outv/ard act of 
adoration, giving this rule and maxim upon it, ^Worship 
God intimating thereby, that God only is to be wor- 
shipped ; that all acts of religious worship are appropri- 
ated to God alone. He does not say, ^ Worship God, 
and whom God shall appoint to be worshipped,' as if he 
had appointed any besides God : nor ' Worship God 
with sovereign worship,' as if any inferior sort of wor- 
ship was permitted to be paid to creatures : but simply, 
plainly, and briefly, ^ Worship God.' 

^'From the known and avowed religious sentiments, 
then, of the Apostles, both as Jews and as Christians, 
as well as from their practice, it follows, that they could 
not pay religious worship to Christ, a fact which has al- 
ready been estabhshed, except they had considered him 
as a Divine Person, and themselves as bound, on that 
account, according to his own words, to honor the Son. 
even as they honored the Father,^' — Watson. 

Efforts have also been made to reduce the worship 
paid to our Saviour into nothing more than expressions 
of respect which was paid to Eastern rulers. But our 
Lord was worshipped during his incarnation, while he 
cautiously avoided giving the least sanction to the no- 
tion that he had any civil pretensions, and that his ob- 
ject was to make himself king. It would, therefore, 
have been a marked inconsistency to suffer himself to 
be saluted with the homage of prostration proper to civil 
governors, and which, indeed, was not always in Judea, 
rendered to them. He did not receive this homage, 
then, under the character of a civil ruler or sovereign ; 
and under what character could he receive it ? Not in 
compliance with the haughty custom of the Jewish 
Rabbis, who exacted great external reverence from their 
disciples, for he sharply reproved their haughtiness and 
love of adulation and honor : not as a simple teacher of 
13* 



150 



DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 



religion, for his Apostles might then have imitated hw 
example, since, upon the Unitarian hypothesis, they, 
when they had collected disciples and founded churches, 
had as clear a right to this distinction as he himself, had 
it only been one of appropriate and common courtesy 
sanctioned by their master. But when do we read of 
their receiving worship without spurning it on the very 
ground that they were 3ien of like passions" with 
others ? How, then, is it to be accounted for, that our 
Lord never forbade or discouraged this practice as to 
himself, or even shunned it ? In no other way, than 
that he was conscious of his natural vmhA to the homao^e 
thus paid ; and that he accepted it as the expression of 
^ faith which, though sometimes wavering, because of 
the obscurity which darkened the minds of his follow- 
ers, and which even his own conduct, mysterious as it 
necessarily was, till ''he openly showed himself" after 
his passion, tended to produce, yet sometimes pierced 
through the cloud, and saw and acknowledged, in the 
Word made flesh, '' the glory as of the only-begotten of 
the Father, full of grace and truth." 

But if Jesus Christ is God, our opponents inquire with 
much triumph, how he could be born and die ? how he 
could grow in wisdom and stature ? how he could be 
subject to law? be tempted? stand in need of prayer? 
how his soul could be exceeding sorrowful even unta 
death?" be ''forsaken of his Father ?" purchase the 
church with " his own blood ?" have " a joy set before 
him ?" be a mediator between God and man ? be exalt- 
ed ? have " all power in heaven and earth" given to- 
him ? he. It should, however, be remembered that he 
was also man, that " in him were united two whole and 
perfect natures, that is to say, the Godhead and man- 
hood." This being the fact with regard to our Saviour, 
the above objections lose all their force : for, as man, he 
could pass through all these changes, while in his Divine 
nature he remains the same, the unchangeable God; and 
that this doctrine of two natures, in the person of 



DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 



151 



Christj is correct, will appear evident from the fact that 
the Scriptures speak of him as '-the Prince of life/' 
who was ''killed,'' Acts iii. 15; ''the Lord of glory/' 
who was infamously "'crucified,'' 1 Cor, ii. 8 ; "the 
root of Jesse," "' and a rod out of the stem of Jesse," 
Isa. xi, 1, 10; "the Lord,** and the "Son," the "root 
and the offspring of David,'' ?^Iatt. xxii. 45 ; Rev. xxii« 
16 ; the "' Lord of all," and the servant of men. Acts 
X. 36 ; Matt. xx. *28 ; "' the Word, which was God, and 
was made flesh," John i. 1, 14 ; "' who was in the form 
of God, and was made in the likeness of men," Phil. ii. 
6, 7 ; the Son of God, and the Son of man ; the fellow 
of Jehovah and of men, Zech. xiii. 7 ; Heb. ii. 9 ; 
eternal, and vet beo^innins:, I\lic. v. *2 ; "' havino; life in 
himself," John i. 4, and yet being dependent; "filling 
all in ail," and lying in a manger. Eph. i. 2.3 ; "' know- 
ing all things," and yet ignorant of some, John xxi. 17 ; 
" almighty," and yet "' crucified through weakness," 
Rev. i. 8 ; 2 Cor. xiii. 4 ; always "' the same," and yet 
undergoing man}' changes, Heb. i. 12; "' reigning for 
ever," and yet resigning the kingdom, Isa. ix. 7 ; 1 
Cor. XV. 24 ; "' equal vdth God," and yet subordinate, 
Phil. ii. 6, &c. ; " one" with God. and yet a Mediator 
between God and men, John x. 30 ; 1 Tim. ii. 5. 
These passages clearly prove both the Divinity and hu- 
manity of our Saviour, and are perfectly irreconcilable 
on any other hypothesis. L^nitarians are therefore un- 
der the necessity of admitting the correctness of this 
theory, or of saying, as some of them have done, that 
the Scriptures are contradictory, and therefore not Di- 
vinely inspired."^ They may take either horn of this 
dilemma. If they yield the point that Christ was both 
God and man, they, as above remarked, give up the 
whole force of their objection. If they say that the 
Bible contradicts itself, we shall then be prepared to 
meet them, not as disguised, but as open and avowed 
infidels. 

* See the extracts from Mr. Parker and Dr. Priestley, on page 6. 



152 



DIVINITY OF CHRIST* 



Unitarians have also attempted to confound the terms 
Person and Essence^ and thereby have endeavored to 
make Trinitarians assert, that there are three essences, 
and consequently three Gods; but that one being 
should necessarily include one person only^ is what 
none can prove from the nature of things ; and all that 
can be affirmed on the subject is, that it is so in fact 
among all intelligent creatures with which we are ac- 
quainted. Among them, distinct persons are only seen 
in separate beings, but this separation of being is clear- 
ly an accident of personality , for the circumstance of 
separation forms no part of the idea of personality it- 
self, which is confined to a capability of performing per- 
sonal acts. In God, the distinct persons are represent- 
ed as having a common foundation in one being : but 
this union also forms no part of the idea of personality, 
nor can be proved inconsistent with it. The manner of 
the union, it is granted, is incomprehensible, and so is 
Deity himself, and every essential attribute with which 
his nature is invested. The objection, therefore, found- 
ed upon the terms person and essence will have no force 
until Unitarians prove that these terms are synonimous, 
or that God cannot exist in three persons ; which they 
cannot do. For though each person be 0/ the essence, ' 
yet the three persons together do constitute the essence : 
And though the vvhole essence is inseparably connected 
with each of the persons, both in willing and working, 
yet it cannot be said with any propriety, that the Fa- 
ther is the whole Essence of the Son, or the Holy 
Ghost, notwithstanding they are distinctly and by them- 
selves essentially divine. Thus, it will appear, that 
though Essence and Person differ as to the full extent 
of the terms, yet they perfectly agree when they apply 
to the reality of the Deity. Each person by himself is 
God, but not the Godhead ; and the Godhead is in each 
person, but is not eaoh person. From this relative dis- 
tinction, it follows, that the Son and Spirit, being per- 
sons in Jehovah and inseparable from the essence; are 



DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 



153 



both personally and essentially Jehovah, and conse- 
quently, either in union or distinction, are the object of 
worship. In fact, as true behevers, we do not and can- 
not worship any one of the Divine Persons separate or 
alone, however we may mention each by themselves ; 
for if we invocate the Son, we invocate the Divine Es- 
sence, which is inseparable from the Son, and conse- 
quently invocate the Father and the Holy Ghost. The 
same may be observed, if we address the other persons- 
By this, we may understand what our Lord implies^ 
when he says, He that hath seen me hath seen the 
Father : I and my Father are one,'' he. so the apostle. 

He that hath the Son, hath the Father also.'' If this 
doctrine of three persons in one essence, or of the one 
essence existing, indivisibly though distinctly, in the 
three persons, were rightly stated, there v/ould seem but 
little room for the disputes respecting the proper object 
of worship and the inferiority or subordination of the- 
Divine persons. 

To attempt, therefore, a refutation of the Divinity of 
Christ, by saying, There are two very and eternal 
Gods," which is the course pursued by many Unita- 
rians, is mere folly. It has no force only on the suppo- 
sition that the doctrine of the Trinity is not true ; and 
of course does not affect us. The point at issue lies 
between our opposers and the Bible ! It says Christ is 
God. They say he is not, or there are two Gods. 
Whatever weight they put upon this objection, I am 
satisfied of its fallacy, because it is placed against the^ 
Scriptures. And while they prefer it, however plausi- 
ble it may appear, they give sufficient evidence that 
they prefer the wisdom of the world to that which com- 
eth from above. 



154 



DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 



CHAPTER V. 

DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

Having, in the two preceding chapters, established 
the proper personahty and Divinity of the Holy Spirit^ 
as well as the Supreme Deity of Jesus Christ, from 
which it necessarily follows that the doctrine of the 
Trinity is true, we now approach, in a more direct man- 
ner, this great mystery of our faith, for the declaration 
of which we are so exclusively indebted to the Scrip- 
tures, that not only is it incapable of proof a priori, 
but it derives no direct confirmatory evidence from the 
existence and wise and orderly arrangements of the 
works of God. It stands, however, on the unshaken 
foundation of his own word ; that testimony which he 
lias given of himself in both Testaments , and if we 
see no traces of it, as of his simple being and operative 
perfections, in the works of his creative power and 
wisdom, the reason is that creation, in itself, could not 
be the medium of manifesting, or of illustrating it. 
Some, it is true, have thought the Trinity of Divine 
"persons in the Unity of the Godhead demonstrable by 
natural reason. Poiret and others, formerly, and Pro- 
fessor Kidd, recently, have all attempted to prove, not 
that this doctrine implies a contradiction, but that it 
cannot be denied without a contradiction ; and that it 
is impossible but that the Divine Nature should so exist. 
The former endeavors to prove that neither creation, 
nor indeed any action in the Deity was possible, but 
from this tri-unity. But his arguments, were they ad- 
duced, would scarcely be considered satisfactory, even 
by those whose belief in this doctrine is most settled. 
The latter argues from notions of duration and space, 
which themselves have not hitherto been satisfactorily 



DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 



155 



established, and if they had, would yield but slight as- 
sistance in such an investigation. This, however, may 
be said respecting such attempts, that they at least show 
that men quite as eminent for strength of understand- 
ing and logical acuteness as any who have decried the 
doctrine of the Trinity as irrational and contradictory, 
find no such opposition in it to the reason or to the na- 
ture of things, as the latter pretend to be almost self- 
evident. The very opposite conclusions reached by 
the parties, when they reason the matter by the light of 
their own intellect only, is a circumstance, it is true, 
which lessens our confidence in pretended rational dem- 
onstrations ; but it gives neither party a right to assume 
any thing at the expense of the other. Such failures 
ought, indeed, to produce in us a proper sense of the in- 
adequacy of human powers to search the deep things 
of God , and they forcibly exhibit the necessity of Di- 
vine teaching in every thing which relates to such sub- 
jects, and demand from us an entire docility of mind, 
where God himself has condescended to become our 
instructor. 

But as Unitarians are very clamorous in their appeals 
to the early fathers, we shall, before we proceed to ex- 
amine the testimony of Scripture, endeavor to prove, 
from the testimony of the fathers of the first three 
centuries, that the Divinity of the Son and of the Holy 
Ghost was, from the days of the Apostles, acknowledged 
/ by the Catholic Church, and that those who maintained 
a contrary opinion were considered as heretics ; and as 
every one knows that neither the Divinity of the Father, 
nor the unity of the Godhead was ever called in ques- 
tion at any period, it follows that the doctrine of the 
Trinity in Unity has been in substance, in all its con- 
stituent parts, always known among Christians. In the 
fourth century it became the subject of eager and gen- 
eral controversy ; and it was not till then that this doc- 
trine was particularly discussed. While there was no 
denial or dispute, proof and defence were unnecessary. 



156 



DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 



But this doctrine is positively mentioned as being admit* 
ted among Catholic Christians, by writers who lived 
long before that age of controversy. Justin Martyr, in 
refuting the charge of atheism against Christians, be- 
cause they did not believe in the gods of the Heathen, 
expressly says, ' We worship and adore the Father and 
the Son who came from him and taught us these things, 
and the prophetic Spirit and soon after, in the same 
apology, he undertakes to show the reasonableness of 
the honor paid by Christians to the Father in the first 
place, to the Son in the second, and to the Holy Ghost 
in the third ; and says, that their assigning the second 
place to a crucified man was, by unbelievers, denomina- 
ted madness, because they were ignorant of the mys- 
tery, which he then proceeds to explain. Athenagoras, 
in replying to the same charge of atheism urged against 
Christians, because they refused to worship the false 
gods of the Heathen, says, ' Who would not wonder, 
when he knows that we, who call upon God the Father, 
and God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, showing 
their power in the Unity, and their distinction in order, 
should be called atheists ?' Clement of Alexandria 
not only mentions three Divine persons, but invokes 
them as the one only God. Praxeas, Sabellius, and 
other Unitarians, accused the orthodox Churches of 
tritheism, which is of itself a clear proof that the ortho- 
dox w^orshipped the Father, the Son, and the Holy 
Ghost. Tertullian, in writing against Praxeas, main- 
tains, that a Trinity, rationally conceived, is consistent 
with truth ; and that unity irrationally conceived forms 
heresy. He had before said, in speaking of the Fath- 
er, Son, and Holy Ghost, that ' there are three of one 
substance, and of one condition, and of one power, 
because there is one God and he afterwards adds, 
* The connection of the Father in the Son, and of the 
Son in the Comforter, makes three united together, the 
one with the other ; which three are one thing, not one 
person ; as it is said, I and the Father are one things 



DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 



157 



with regard to the unity of substance, not to the singu- 
larity of number:' and he also expressly says, 'The 
Father is God, and the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost 
is God and again, ^ The Father, the Son, and the 
Holy Ghost, believed to be three, constitute one God.' 
And in another part of his works he says, ' There is a 
Trinity of one Divinity, the Father, and the Son, and 
the Holy Ghost.' And TertuUian not only maintains 
these doctrines, but asserts that they were prior to any 
heresy, and had, indeed, been the faith of Christians 
from the first promulgation of the gospel. To these 
writers of the second century, w^e may add Origen and 
Cyprian in the third ; the former of whom mentions 
baptism (alluding to its appointed form.) as ' the source 
and fountain of graces to him who dedicates himself to 
the Divinity of the adorable Trinity.' And* the latter, 
after reciting the same form of baptism, says that 'by it 
Christ delivered the doctrine of the Trinity, unto which 
mystery or sacrament the nations were to be baptized.' 
It would be easy to multiply quotations upon this sub* 
ject ; but these are amply sufficient to show the opinions 
of the early fathers, and to refute the assertion that the 
doctrine of the Trinity was an invention of the fourth 
century." — Watson, 

The decision of the council of Nice may also be con- 
sidered as establishing the position that the doctrine of 
the Trinity w^as held by the first Christian churches, 
and therefore by the Apostles. This council met in 
the year 325, and is thus spoken of by Eusebius Pam- 
philus, who w^as one of its members : 

'' The most distinguished ministers of God met to- 
gether from every part of Europe, Asia, and Africa. 
The sacred edifice, as if enlarged by the pleasure of 
God, inclosed at the same time within its w^alls, both 
Syrians and Cilicians, Phenicians, Arabians, and in- 
habitants of Palestine ; Egyptians, Thebeans, and 
Lybians, with others arriving from Mesopotamia. A 
bishop from Persia was also present. Nor w^as the 
14 



158 



DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 



Scythian absent from this assembly. Pontus, also^ 
and Gallatia, Pamphyha and Cappadocia, Asia and 
Phrygia famished representatives from their most able 
divines. Thracians, toO;, Macedonians, Achaians and 
Epirotes, and those who resided at a vast distance be- 
yond them, were convened. That illustrious Spaniard, 
who is so highly spoken of, took his seat with the oth- 
ers. The prelate of the imperial city, indeed, was 
absent on account of his advanced years, but his place 
was supplied by presbyters. Constantine, alone, of all 
the princes who ever lived, wove so brilliant a crown as 
this, joined together by the bond of peace, as a suitable 
acknowledgment of gratitude to heaven for the victories 
vouchsafed him over his enemies, and dedicated it to 
God his Saviour, in bringing together so great a con- 
vention ; an image, as it were, of the Apostolic assem- 
bly. For it is related that in the times of the Apos- 
tles religious men were gathered together from every 
nation under heaven. Among them were Parthians, 
Medes, Elamites, and inhabitants of Mesopotamia, Ju- 
dea and Cappadocia, Pontus, Asia, and Pamphylia, 
Egypt, and the parts of Lybia, w^hich is near Cyrene ; 
strangers, also, of Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretes 
and Arabians. In that congregation, however, there 
vv^as this circumstance of inferiority, that all who were 
collected together were not ministers of God, while the 
present assembly included more than two hundred and 
fifty bishops ; but such a multitude of presbyters, dea- 
cons and acolothists accompanied them, that it was diffi- 
cult to determine their number. Among these holy 
ministers, some excelled by the wisdom and eloquence 
of their discourse, others by the gravity of their deport- 
ment and patience of labor ; ^and others, again, by 
their humility, and the gentleness of their manners. 
Some of them were honored on account of their gray 
hairs, while others were recommended by their 
youthfal vigor and activity both of body and mind." 
Yet; notwithstanding the number; the piety, and tal- 



DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 



159 



ents of the men who composed this Council, they unan- 
imously, with the exception of five, signed the follow- 
ing creed, so much despised by Unitarians, because it 
contains the doctrine of the Trinity : 

We beheve in one God, the Father Almighty, Ma- 
ker of all things, visible, and invisible : and in one 
Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only begotten 
of the Father, that is, of the substance of the Father ; 
God of God, hght of light, true God of true God : be- 
gotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father, by 
whom all things were made, both in heaven and in 
earth : who for us men, and for our salvation, descend- 
ed, was incarnate, and was made man, and suffered, and 
rose again the third day ; he ascended into heaven, and 
shall come to judge the living and the dead : And in 
the Holy Spirit* But the holy catholic and apostolic 
Church of God anathematizes those who affirm that 
there was a time when the Son was not, or that he was 
not before he was begotten, or that he was made of 
things not existing ; or who say, that the Son of God 
was of any other substance or essence, or created, or 
liable to change or conversion.'' 

The remarkable unanimity of the synod on this 
subject, which is the only one examined by that con- 
vention, which excites much Interest at the present day, 
may be considered, under the peculiar circumstances of 
the case, as affording a powerful confirmation of the 
truth of this important doctrine. Every part of the 
Christian world was virtually represented by men. who, 
for their commanding station and favorable opportuni- 
ties, must be supposed to have been v/ell acquainted 
with what was understood to have been the doctrine of 
the Apostles on this important article of our faith. Most 
of them, probably, lived within two centuries of the 
death of St. John. Could the original doctrine have 
been lost in a period so comparatively short ? Could It 
have been corrupted ? Could it have been generally 
corrupted throughout the Church ? If not, the fathers 



160 



DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 



of Nice must have held, in this respect, the faith deliv- 
ered by the first preachers of Christianity, and conse- 
quently the true one. They could not have been igno- 
rant of what was and had been believed in their res- 
pective countries. The agreement, therefore, on this 
point, of so many different nations, as expressed by 
their representatives, nations of such various characters^ 
pursuits, manners, customs and prejudices, can be satis- 
factorily accounted for only on the supposition that they 
had received their behef from a common source, and 
preserved it pure by tradition, during the few genera- 
tions which had elapsed from the time when they first 
received the gospel from the Apostles themselves, or 
from those who lived not long after the apostolic age. 
It may be said, that many of the members of the coun-^ 
oil might have been deterred from expressing their real 
belief, as some few of them undoubtedly were, from the . ' 
fear of exile or deposition. But they appear to have 
been almost unanimous on this subject before any threats 
of that kind were held out, and therefore such an ap- 
prehension could have operated on a very small number 
only ; and if even a mere majority had been Arians. 
the danger would obviously have been on the other side., 
St. Chrysostom remarks, that it would be absurd to 
charge the council, composed as it was, in a great meas- 
ure, of saints and confessors, either with ignorance or 
fear. Nor does this reflection seem to be unfounded. 
For, how can it be reasonably supposed, that in the 
situation in which they were placed, and which has al- 
ready been adverted to, they could be in any doubt 
whether our Lord was Divine in the strict sense of the 
term, or a creature only, however exalted in rank and 
dignity ; or that such men would have disguised their 
genuine persuasion from a fear of losing their sacerdotal . ; ■ 
honors, or of missing those temporal advantages and 
emoluments which they might naturally have expected 
to enjoy under the dominion of a Christian prince ? 
Was it for them, men of unblemished integrity and vir-^ 



DOCTRINE Ot THE TRINITY. 



161 



tue, basely to violate their consciences for ^ a piece of 
bread ?" or descend, for the sake of office, from their 
elevated position, as good soldiers of Jesus Christ," 
to the meanness of subterfuge and dissimulation ? Was 
it for men who were born and grew up amJdst scenes of 
pagan insult, cruelty and oppression, and many of 
whom, for their courageous defence of the truth, had 
been deprived of their substance, or loaded with chains, 
or confined in a duno-eon, or maimed and disfig-ured in 
their persons : and who would doubtless have accom- 
panied their heroic brethren in the faith, ' counting not 
their lives dear unto them,* to the scaffold or the stake ; 
or would have expired in torments on the rack, or been 
nailed to the cross, or become food for lions, rather than 
blaspheme that worthy name whereby they were call- 
ed — ^was it for them to [stoop to such moral degrada- 
tion ? men, too, some of whom had been distinguished 
by the episcopal mitre at a period when it was so far from 
advancing their worldly interest, that it only exposed 
them more surely to the ' loss of all things,' added to 
tlieir toils, their trials, and their sufferings, and served 
but to render them a more conspicuous mark for heathen 
persecution (Boyle.) Fear, then, could have had 
no influence over these men when they signed the above 
creed, which so clearly embraces the doctrine of the 
Trinity. They therefore signed it deliberately and 
from choice, as expressing their religious sentiments on 
this important subject. We must, therefore, admit that 
the Nicene fathers were Trinitarians ; and if so, this 
must have been the faith of the Apostles, unless we 
suppose that the Church, during this short period from 
the Apostles, (325 years,) had become nmversally cor- 
inipt, which is far from the truth ; for, although some 
had departed from the faith and denied the Lord that 
bought them, yet the followers of Christ, in general^ 
down to this period, adhered to the doctrines of the 
Saviour and his Apostles. 

Dr. Mosheim^ who is often appealed to by our oppo- 
14# 



162 



DOCTRINE Of THE TUmiTt. 



nents, in his Ecclesiastical History, gives decided tes- 
timony to the fact that this doctrine of the Trinity was 
the doctrine of the Church during the three first centu- 
ries, for he expressly says, that ''the Church, indeed^ 
had frequently decided against the Sabellians and oth- 
ers, that there was a real difference between the Father 
and Son, and that the Holy Ghost was distinct from 
them both ; or as we commonly speak, that three dis- 
tinct persons exist in the Deity ; but the mutual relation 
of these persons to each other, and the nature of that 
distinction that subsists between them, are matters that 
hitherto were neither disputed nor explained." Let it 
be remarked that the Dr. is here speaking of the Church 
previous to the council of Nice, and that the Sabellians 
were Unitarians, who contended that there was but one 
person in the Godhead ; but during the three first cen- 
turies the church had frequently decided against this, 
and consequently in favor of the Trinity, or that there 
was, as Dr. Mosheim expresses it, '' three distinct per- 
sons in the Deity." This doctrine was, therefore, the 
doctrine of the Church of Christ during the days of the 
Apostles, Martyrs and primitive Christians. 

This position is also established by the history of the 
controversy itself which proves that the doctrine of the 
Trinity ''was held as an article of faith in the church 
anterior to the Nicene convention ; if not, about what 
did Arius find fault ? And why did he remonstrate 
against the doctrine of the Church, without all edging 
that it was not till then corrupt? And also from the 
fact that when Trypho, the Jew, and Apulius, the 
skeptic, set up their opposition against the Christian re- 
ligion on account of the folly that they conceived there 
was in subscribing to so paradoxical an article as they 
represented that of the Trinity to be, and that their able 
antagonists, Justin Martyr and Origen, did not deny the 
fact, there can remain no doubt that they did hold it 
a fundamental article of their faith. 

As this controversy has not been much agitated of 



DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY- 



163 



late years as far in the country as where that class of 
Unitarians who claim to be called Christians mostly 
prevail 5 they amuse the people with an idea that the 
priests of the several denominations who believe in the 
doctrine of the Trinity have purposely kept them in ig- 
norance on this subject ; intimating that their silence, 
which necessity has not disturbed on account of the 
victory this truth has so long since obtained over the 
error that is opposed to it, is the studied effect of a fear 
to have it investigated ; and that they have come to 
tear away the veil and expose the secret. This im- 
pression being carried to the minds of the people by the 
cautious method of these teachers in communicating it, 
naturally associates with it an idea that the v/orld has 
always bsen thus imposed on, and they of course think 
more favorably of the cause which is thus shrewdly 
represented as being oppressed by the art of designing 
men, than they would if they knew that it had frequent- 
ly been tested, and ahways failed under the most favora- 
ble circumstances to succeed. 

To expose this deception, the above remarks have 
been offered, and we think they are sufficient to show 
the candid reader that so far is the doctrine of the Trin- 
ity from having its origin in the dark ages of the Church, 
that it has been handed down to us from the Saviour 
and his Apostles. 

2. The antiquity and universal spread of this doc- 
trine may be argued in favor of its truth. That near- 
ly all the Pagan nations of antiquity, says Bishop Tom- 
line, in their various theological systems, acknowledged 
a kind of Trinity, has been fully evinced by those learn- 
ed men who have made the Heathen mythology the 
subject of their elaborate inquiries. The almost uni- 
versal prevalence of this doctrine in the Gentile king- 
doms mu5t be considered as a strong argument in favor 
of its truth. The doctrine itself bears such striking in- 
ternal marks of a divdne original, and is so very unlikely 
to have been the invention of mere human reason, that 



164 



DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 



there is no way of accounting for the general adoption 
of so singular a belief, but by supposing that it was re- 
vealed by God to the early patriarchs, and that it was 
transmitted by them to their posterity. In its progress, 
indeed, to remote countries, and to distant generations, 
this belief became depraved and corrupted in the high- 
est degree ; and he alone who brought ' life and immor- 
tality to light,' could restore it to its original simplicity 
and purity. The discovery of the existence of this 
doctrine in the early ages, among the nations whose re- 
cords have been the best preserved, has been of great 
service to the cause of Christianity, and completely re- 
futes the assertion of infidels and skeptics, that the sub- 
lime and mysterious doctrine of the Trinity owes its ori- 
gin to the philosophers of Greece. ' If we extend,' 
says Mr. Maurice, ' our eye through the remote region 
of antiquity, we shall find this very doctrine, which the 
primitive Christians are said to have borrowed from the 
Platonic school, universally and immemorially flourish- 
ing in all those countries where history and tradition 
have united to fix those virtuous ancestors of the human 
race, who, for their distinguished attainments in piety, 
were admitted to a familiar intercourse with Jehovah 
and the angels, the divine heralds of his commands.' " 
3. We will now appeal to the testimony of Scrip- 
ture. The first argument drawn from this source will 
be founded on the word Elohim, a noun " of the plural 
number, by which the Creator is expressed. This ap- 
pears as evidently to point toward a plurality of per- 
sons in the divine nature, as the verb in the singular, 
with which it is joined, does to the unity of that nature : 
^ In the beginning God created ;' with strict attention 
to grammatical propriety, the passage should be render- 
ed, ' In the beginning Gods created,' but our belief in 
the unity of God forbids us thus to translate the word 
Elohim. Since, therefore, Elohim is plural, and no plu- 
ral can consist of less than two in number, and since 
creation can alone be the work of Deity, we are to un- 



DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY, 



165 



derstand by this term so particularly used in this place, 
God the Father, and the eternal Logos, or Word of 
God ; that Logos whom St. John, supplying us with an 
excellent comment upon this passage, says, was in the 
beminino; with God, and who also was God. As the 
Father and the Son are expressly pointed out in the first 
verse of this chapter, so is the Third Person in the bles- 
sed Trinity not less decisively revealed to us in Gen» i. 
2 : ' And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of 
tlie waters ^brooded upon' the water, incubavit, as a 
hen broods over her eggs. Thus we see the Spirit ex- 
erted upon this occasion an active effectual energy ; by 
that energy agitating the vast abyss, and infusing into it 
a powerful vital principle. 

" Elohim seems to be the general appellation by 
which the Triune Godhead is collectively distinguished 
in Scripture ; and in the concise history of the creation 
only, the expression, bara Elohim^ ^ the Gods created,' 
is used above thirty times. The combining this plural 
noun with a verb in the singular would not appear so re- 
markable, if Moses had uniformly adhered to that mode 
of expression ; for then it would be evident that he 
adopted the mode used by the Gentiles in speaking of 
their false gods in the plural number, but by joining 
with it a singular verb or adjective, rectified a phrase 
that might appear to give a direct sanction to the error 
of polytheism. But, in reality, the reverse is the fact ; 
for, in Deut. xxxii. 15, IT, and other places, he uses 
the singular number of this very noun to express the 
Deity, though not employed in the august work of cre- 
ation : ' He forsook God,' Eloah ; ' they sacrificed to 
devils not to God,' Eloah, But farther, Moses himself 
uses this very word Elohim with verbs and adjectives in 
the plural. Of this usage Dr. Allix enumerates many 
other striking instances that might be brought from the 
Pentateuch ; and other inspired writers use it in the 
same manner in various parts of the Old Testament, 
Job XXXV. 10 ; Joshua xxiv. 19 ; Psalm cix. 1 ; Eccle« 



166 



DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 



siastes xli. 3 ; 2 Samuel vii. 23. It must appear, there- 
fore, to every reader of reflection, exceedingly singular, 
that v/hen Moses was endeavoring to establish a theo- 
logical system, of which the unity of the Godhead was 
the leading principle, and in which it differed from all 
other systems, he should make use of terms directly im- 
plicative of a plurality in it ; yet so deeply was the aw- 
ful truth under consideration impressed upon the mind 
of the Hebrew legislator, that this is constantly done by 
him ; and, indeed, as iVllix has observed, there is scarce- 
ly any method of speaking from which a plurality in 
Deity may be inferred, that is not used either by himself 
in the Pentateuch, or by the other inspired writers in 
various parts of the Old Testament." 

Unitarians have attempted to evade the force of the 
^gument drawn from the word Elohim, by saying that 
this is given to Moses, Abraham, and several other cele- 
brated characters among the Jews. This, however, is 
a mistake ; Dr. Adam Clark, who was certainly both a 
competent and honest Hebrew critic, expressly says, 
that the word Elohim is never a human appellation in 
any instance except one, and that is in these words of 
the Saviour, I said ye are Gods," (Elohim) but in this 
case it is certainly plural, as well as in all others ; and, 
tlierefore, when applied to God, it must express a plu- 
rality of persons in the Divine essence. 

4. " If the argum^ent above offered should still appear 
inconclusive, the twenty-sixth verse of the first chapter 
of Genesis contains so pointed an attestation to the 
truth of it, that, when duly considered, it must stagger 
the most hardened skeptic ; for in that text not only the 
plurality is unequivocally expressed, but the act which 
is the peculiar prerogative of Deity is mentioned to- 
gether with that plurality, the one circumstance illustra- 
ting the other, and both being highly elucidatory of this 
doctrine : ' And God (Elohim) said. Let us make man 
in our image, after our likeness.' Why the Deity should 
speak of himself in the plural number, unless that Deity 



DOCTRINE OF THE TPaNITY. 



167 



consisted of more than one person, it is difncult to con- 
ceive ; for the answer given by modern"* Unitarians, 
"that this is only a figurative mode of expression, un- 
plying the high dignity of the speaker, and that it is 
usual for earthly sovereigns to use this language by way 
of distinction, is iutile. for two reasons. In the first 
place, it is highly degrading to the Supreme Majesty to 
suppose he would take his model of speaking and 
thinkincT fi^om man. though it is highly consistent with 
the vanity of man to arrogate to himself, as doubtless 
was the case in the licentiousness of succeeding ages, 
the style and imagined conceptions of Deity ; and it 
will be remembered, that these solemn words v^-v:^re spo- 
ken before the creation of any of those mortals. v%-hose 
false notions of greatness and sublimity the Almighty is 
thus impiously supposed to adopt. In truth, there does 
not seem to be any real dignity in an expression, which, 
when used by a human sovereign in relation to himself, 
approaches very near to absurdity. The genuine fact, 
however, anpears to be this. When the tvrants of the 
east first began to assume divine honors, they assumed 
likewise the majestic language appropriated to. and 
hit{hlv becomins:. the Deitv. but totallv inanplicable to 
man. The error was propagated from age to ac^e through 
a long succession of despots, and at length Judaic apos- 
tacy arrived at such a pitch of profane absurdity, as to 
affirm that very phraseology to be borrowed from man 
which was the original and peculiar language of the 
Divinity. It was. indeed, remarkably pertinent when 
applied to Deity ; for. in a succeeding chapter, we have 
more decisive authority for what is thus asserted, where 
the Lord God himself says. Behold, the man is be- 
come as one of us:' a very smgular expression, which 
some Jevdsh commentators, with equal eilrontery, con- 
tend was spoken by the Deity to the council of an 2: els, 
that, according to their assertions, attended him at the 
creation. From the name of the Lord God beins; used 
in so emphatic al a manner, it evidently appears to be ad* 



168 



DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 



dressed to those sacred persons to whom it was before 
said. • Let us make man ;' for would indeed the omni- 
potent Jehovah, presiding in a less dignified council, use 
words that have such an evident tendency to place the 
Deity on a level with created beings r' 

5. The solemn form of bendiction. in which the 
Jewish High Priests were commanded to bless the chil- 
dren of Israel." may be considered as a stroncr argument 
in favor of the Trinity. •* and singularly answers to the 
form of benediction so general in the close of the Apos- 
tolic Epistles, and which so appropriately closes the 
solemn services of Christian worship. It is given in 
?^'umbers vi. '24 — '27, 

Jehovah bles5 thee and keep thee : 

Jehovah make his face to shiue upon thee, and be gTacious unto thee : 
Jehovah hft his countenance upon thee, and g-iv-e thee peace. 

'•'If the three members of this form of benediction 
be attentively considered, they will be found to agree 
respectively to the three persons taken in the usual 
order of the Father, the Son. and the Holy Ghost. 
The Father is the author of blessing and ]jreservatio?i, 
illumination and grace are from the Son. iUuminatioii 
a.Ti& peace from the Spirit, the teacher of truth and the 
C omfor t er . ' * — J] at son. 

The first member of the formula expresses the be- 
nevolent • love of God.* the father of Mercies, and 
fountain of ail good : the second well comports with the 
Tedeeming and reconciling • grace of our Lord Jesus 
Christ :' and the last is appropriate to the purity, conso- 
lation and joy. which are received from the -'commu- 
nion of the Holy Spirit." — Smith, 

The connection of certain specific blessings in this 
form of benediction with the Jehovah mentioned three 
times distinctly, and those which are represented as 
flowing from the Father. Son. and Spirit in the apostol- 
ic form, would be a singular coincidence, if it even stood 
alone : but the light of the same eminent truth breaks 



DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 



169 



forth from other partings of the clouds of the early 
morning of revelation. 

The inner part of the Jewish Sanctuary was called 
the Holy of Holies^that is the holy place of the Holy ones; 
and the number of these is indicated and limited to three 
in the celebrated vision of Isaiah, and that with great 
explicitness. The scene of that vision is the holy place 
of the Temple, and lies, therefore, in the very abode 
and residence of the Holy ones, here celebrated by the 
seraphs, who veiled their faces before them. And one 
cried unto another, and said, ^ Holy, Holy, Holy is the 
Lord of Hosts. ^ This passage, if it stood alone, might 
be eluded by saying that this act of Divine adoration, 
here mentioned, is merely emphatic, or in the Hebrew 
mode of expressing a superlative, though that is as- 
sumed and by no means proved. It is, however, wor- 
thy of serious notice, that this distinct trine act of ado- 
ration, wdiich has been so often supposed to mark a plu- 
rality of persons as the objects of it, is answered by a 
voice from that excellent o;lorv which overwhelmed the 
mind of the Prophet v/hen he Vv as favored with the vis- 
ion, responding in the same language of plurality in 
which the doxology of the seraphs is expressed. 'Also 
I heard the voice of the Lord, saying. Whom shall I 
send, and who will go for us ?' But this is not the only ev- 
idence that in this passage the Holy ones who were ad- 
dressed each by his appropriate and equal distinction of 
holy, were the three Divine subsistencies in the God- 
head. The being addressed is the ' Lord of Hosts.' 
This all acknowledge to include the Father ; but the 
Evangelist John, xii. 41, in manifest reference to this 
transaction, observes, ' These things said Esaias, when 
he saw his (Christ's) glory, and spake of him.' In this 
vision, therefore, we have the Son also, whose glory on 
this occasion the Prophet is said to have beheld. Acts 
xxviii. 25, determines that there was also the pres- 
ence of the Holy Ghost. ' Well spake the Holy 
Ghost by Esaias the Prophet unto our fathers, saying, 
15 



170 



DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY* 



Go unto this people and say. Hearing ye shall hear and 
not understand, and seeing ye shall see and not per-* 
ceive/ &c. These words, quoted from Isaiah, the 
Apostle Paul declares to have been spoken by the Ho- 
ly Ghost, and Isaiah declares them to have been spoken 
on this very occasion by the ' Lord of Hosts.' ^ And 
he said, Go and tell this people. Hear ye indeed and 
understand not, and see ye indeed but perceive 
not,' &c. 

Now let all these circumstances be placed together 
—THE PLACE, the holy place of the Holy one ; the 
repetition of the homage, three times. Holy, Holy, 
Holy — the one Jehovah of hosts, to whom it was ad- 
dressed — the plural pronoun used by this one Jehovah, 
us ; the declaration of an Evangelist, that on this oc- 
casion Isaiah saw the glory of Christ ; the declaration 
of St. Paul, that the Lord of Hosts who spoke on that 
occasion was the Holy Ghost ; and the conclusion will 
not appear to be without most powerful authority, both 
circumstantial and declaratory, that the adoration. Holy, 
Holy, Holy, referred to the Divine Three, in the one 
essence of the Lord of Hosts. According to the book 
of Revelation, where ' the Lamb^ is so constantly rep- 
resented as sitting upon the Divine throne, and where 
he by name is associated with the Father, as an object 
of the equal homage and praise of saints and angels ; 
this scene from Isaiah is transferred into the 4th chapter, 
and the ' living creatures,' the seraphim of the Pro- 
phet, are heard in the same strain, and with the same 
trine repetition, saying. Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God 
Almighty, which ivas, and is, and is to come.^^ 

That this repetition of holy three times expressed 
the doctrine of the Trinity, was believed and taught by 
the Jewish Rabbins before Christ, and were it not for 
the hatred of modern Jews to our Saviour, they un- 
doubtedly would admit the same fact ; for it is not an idle 
repetition or ascription of holiness, but a celebration of 
the proper holiness and Divinity of the three persons 



DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 



171 



in the Lord of Hosts. Nor, as St. Jerom justly ob- 
serves, is that frequent declaration, I am the God of 
Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob," 
without its meaning ; but the threefold repetition inti- 
mates the Trinity ; and the reiteration of the same name 
(Elohim) denotes the Unity of substance. 

Isaiah xlviii. 16, also makes this threefold distinction 
and limitation. '^And now the Lord God and his Spirit 
has sent me." Here are three distinct persons engaged 
in one work and declaration. The person speaking by 
tlie Prophet is the person sent, and styles himself, just 
before. The First and the Last. In a preceding chap- 
tjer, this First and Last is called Jehovah the Redeemer 
and Lord of Hosts, (Jehovah Sabaoth,) which last 
name is applicable, on no account, but to the supreme 
God. But in the book of Revelation, at several times, 
we find the Lord Jesus Christ assuming this very name, 
and saying, I am Alpha and Omega, The First and the 
Last. Christ, therefore, being the First and the Last, 
the Sent One of the Father and of the Spirit, and Je- 
hovah Sabaoth or Lord of Hosts, is in himself true and 
very God, and also a person of co-equal dignity with the 
other persons in the Godhead. Nor is the grammatical 
construction of the text to be unnoticed. It is not said 
the Lord God and his Spirit have sent, in the plural 
number, but hath sent, in the singular ; thereby intima- 
ting the unity of the Divine nature in the plurality of 
persons. The mission or sending of Christ by no 
means degrades the honor of his Divinity : Even a 
superior may be sent by an inferior, if the superior 
chooses to go." How, then, can mission be incompat- 
ible with equality ? especially since Christ voluntarily 
covenanted to come down in the behalf of his people ; 
and may be said to have been sent by the Father and 
the Spirit, because they also voluntarily covenanted that 
he should come. 

6. The form of baptism next presents itself as de- 
monstrative testimony in favor of the Trinity. ' Go 



172 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the 
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,' Matt, 
xviii. 19. The gospel is every where in Scripture rep- 
resented as a covenant or conditional offer of eternal 
salvation from God to man : and baptism was the ap- 
pointed ordinance by which men were to be admitted into 
that covenant, by w^hich that offer was miade and accept- 
ed. This covenant being to be made with God him- 
self, the ordinance, of course, must be performed in his 
name ; but Christ directed that it should be performed 
in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the 
Holy Ghost ; and therefore we conclude that God is 
the same as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. 
Since baptism is to be performed in the name of the 
Father, the Son, an the Holy Ghost, they must be all 
three persons ; and since no superiority or difference 
w^hatever is mentioned in this solemm form of baptism, 
we conclude that these three persons are all of one sub- 
stance, power, and eternity. Are we to be baptized in 
the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy 
Ghost, and is it possible that the Father should be self- 
existent, eternal, the Lord God Omnipotent : and that 
the Son, in whose name we are equally baptized, 
should be a mere man, born of a woman, and subject to 
all the frailties and imperfections of human nature? or, 
is it possible that the Holy Ghost, in whose name also 
we are equally baptized, should be a bare energy or op- 
eration, a quality or power, without even personal ex- 
istence ? Our feelings, as well as our reason, revolt 
from the idea of such disparity. 

This argument will derive great strength from the 
practice of the early ages, and from the observations 
which we meet with in several of the ancient fathers 
relative to it. We learn from Ambrose, that persons at 
the time of their baptism declared their belief in the 
three persons of the Holy Trinity, and that they were 
dipped in the water three times. In his treatise upon 
the Sacraments, he says, ' Thou wast asked at thy bap- 



DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 173 

tism. Dost thou believe in the Father Ahiiighty ? and 
thou didst reply. I believe, and thou wast dipped : and 
a second time thou wast asked. Dost thou believe in Je- 
sus Christ the Lord ? thou didst answer again. I believe, 
and thou wast dipped ; a third time the question ^^'as 
repeated. Dost thou behve in the Holy Ghost ? and the 
answer was, I believe, then thou was dipped a third 
time..' It is to be noticed, that the belief, here ex- 
pressed separately, in the three persons of the Trinity, 
is precisely the same in all. Tertuliian, Basil, and 
Jerom, all mention this practice of trine immersion as 
ancient : and Jerom says. •* e are thrice dipped in the 
waiter, that the mystery of the Trinity may appear to 
be but one. We are not baptized m the names of the 
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, but m one name, vehich 
is God's : and therefore, though we be thrice put under 
water to represent the mystery of the Trinity, yet it is 
reputed but one baptism.* Thus the mysterious union 
of the Father, the Son. and the Holy Ghost, as one 
God, was, in the opinion of the purer ages of the 
Christian Church, clearly expressed in this form of 
baptism. By it the primitive Christians understood 
the Fathers gracious acceptance of the atonement 
offered by the Z\Iessiah ; the peculiar protection of the 
Son, our great High Priest and Intercessor ; and the 
readiness of the Holy Ghost to sanctify, to assist, and 
to comfort all the obedient followers of Christ, confirm- 
ed by the vi-ible gift of tongues, of proph-^cy. and di- 
vers other gifts to the first disciple-. And as their 
great Master's instructions evidently di-iin^uished these 
persons from each other, without any difference in their 
authority or power, all standing forth as equally dispen- 
sing the benefits of Christianity, as equally the objects 
of the faith required in converts upon admission into 
tlie Church, they clearly understood that the Father, the 
Son, and the Holy Ghost, were likewise equally the 
objects of their grateful worship ; this fully appears from 
15* 



DOCTRtlS'E or THE TRIKtTT- 



their prayers, doxologies, hymns^ and creeds, which are 
still extant.'' 

7. The doxology at the conclusion of St. Paul's 
Epistles to the Corinthians, may be considered as 
proof in favor of the doctrine of the Trinity. The 
grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, 
and the fellowship of the Holy Ghost, be with you.' 
The manner in which Christ and the Holy Ghost are 
here mentioned, implies that they are persons, for none 
but persons can confer grace or fellowship ; and these 
three great blessings of grace, love, and fellowship, 
being respectively prayed for by the inspired Apos- 
tle from Jesus Christ, God the Father, and the Holy 
Ghostj without any intimation of disparity, we conclude 
that these three persons are equal and Divine. This sol- 
emn benediction may therefore be considered as another 
proof of the Trinity, since it acknowledges the Divinity 
of Jesus Christ and of the Holy Ghost.'' 

8. This doctrine is most clearly taught in ''the fol- 
lowing: salutation or benediction in the beo;innins of the 
Revelation of St. John : ' Grace and peace from Him 
which is, and which was, and which is to come ; and 
from the seven spirits which are before his throne, and 
from Jesus Christ.' Here the Father is described by a 
periphrasis taken from his attribute of eternity : and 
'the seven spirits ' is a mystical expression for the Holy 
Ghost, used upon this occasion either because the salu- 
tation is addressed to seven Churches, every one of 
which had partaken of the Spirh, or because seven was 
a sacred number among the Jews, denoting both variety 
and perfection, and in this case alluding to the various 
gifts, administrations, and operations of the Holy Ghost. 
Since grace and peace are prayed for from these three 
persons jointly and without discrimination, we infer an 
equahty in their power to dispense these blessings ; and 
we farther conclude that these three persons together 
constitute the Supreme Being, who is alone the object 
of prayer^ and is alone the Giver of every good and of 



DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY, 



175 



every perfect gift. It raight be right to remark, that the 
seven spirits cannot mean angels, since prayers are nev- 
er in Scripture addressed to angels, nor are blessings 
ever pronounced in their name. It is unnecessary to 
quote any of the numerous passages in which the Fath- 
er is singly called God, as some of them must be recol- 
lected by every one, and the Divinity of the Father is 
not called in question by any sect of Christians." ( Wat- 
son,) As it has been clearly shown from the plainest and 
most unequivocal Scripture testimony that Christ is God, 
and that the Holy Ghost is God, it must necessarily 
follow, since there is but one God, that the Father, Son, 
and Holy Ghost are this one God. 

We therefore see that the Scriptures inform us that 
there are three distinct persons, styled Father, Son and 
Spirit, who have distinct offices and energies in the sal- 
vation of man ; and that each of these three do claim 
the powder and name of the one Jehovah ; it is obvious, 
that they are not one in the same respect as they are 
three, but that there is a real distinction in their insep- 
arable union. One they must be essentially, for there is 
but one God : Three they must also be hypostatically 
or personally, or there is neither Father, Son, nor Holy 
Ghost, and of course the Scriptures are false. The 
conclusion, therefore, is plain and clear that these three 
persons are one Godhead, and that the one Godhead (if 
it may be said) is the common substratum, of the three 
persons, in which they mutually and inseparably co- 
exist, " without any difference or inequality." To ex- 
press this intercommunity of the Divine persons, the 
plural names, ascribed to the Godhead in the Hebrew 
Bible, appear to have been revealed, and not for the 
sake of dignity, as some have imagined ; because God 
can receive no honor from mere sounds, but only from 
what they signify ; and he has given us not the least 
hint that he has used the plural number for any such pur- 
pose. And if the Godhead be one only person, with 
what propriety is the plural number Elohim so often 



176 



DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 



used, when its own singular Eloah would in that cas-e 
be so much more appropriate ? Besides^ it is a ques- 
tion upon his truth, that he should call himself We and 
Us, instead of I and Me, as he frequently does, if he 
were only one person or subsistence ; and it would be 
representing God as complimenting himself, at the ex- 
pense of his veracity, in the hollow language of earthly 
courts and princes. 

To render this important point still more undeniable, 
it may not be improper to produce some proofs from the 
Scripture, in addition to those already offered, which 
may evince, that what is said of the Father is said of 
tlie Son and Holy Ghost, without reserve or limitation, 
and that, therefore, they are one in essence though three 
in person. 

God alone, mediately or immediately can raise the 
dead. 

But the Father raiseth up the dead and quickeneth 
them. John v. 21. So doth the Son whom he will. 
Ibid. And the Spirit raised and quickened even Christ 
himself from the dead. 1 Pet. iii. 18. See also Rom, 
viii. 1 1 . Therefore each of these three must be God ; 
but there is but one God, therefore these three are that 
ONE God. 

In Col. ii. 2, the Apostle speaks of the mystery of 
God, and of the Father, and of Christ. Now, if the 
God and the Father in this place are one and the same 
person, it vv ill follo w, upon the same ground, that God, 
and the Father, and Christ, are all one and the same 
person ; for the same copulatives unite the one and the 
other. The iVpostle, likewise, could not have called 
that a mystery (to acknowledge v>hich, the Collosians 
were to increase in faith.) which would only imply that 
these three names meant one and the same thing : for 
this would have been playing upon terms, which is a 
sort of folly not to be found in God's word. But if he 
meant the doctrine of a Trinity, and that the Father, 
and Christ as to his Divinity^ with another person term- 



DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY- 



17t 



ed God, who, from other Scriptures we learn, must be 
God the Holy Ghost, are three persons in one God- 
head, then he might justly call it a mystery, because it 
is both a Divine revelation and a matter of faith to the 
acknowledgment of which it would be the riches of the 
full assurance of understanding to obtain. 

In 1 John V. 7, it is most expressly declared that 
there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father^, 
the Word, and the Holy Ghost : and these three are 
one." This passage so clearly asserts the doctrine of 
the Trinity, that Unitarians, in order to evade its force^ 
have been reduced to the necessity of denying its au- 
thenticity : as may be seen by referring to Mr. Millard's 
True Messiah, vrhere, although he styles himself a Bi-> 
ble Christian, he flatly denies that this passage is the 
word of God, and looks upon it as an interpolation, and 
in this he is followed by Unitarians generally. But this 
is not the only text which is thus looked upon by these 
enemies of the doctrine for which we are now contend- 
ing ; several others share the same fate, while the trans- 
lation of a large number of texts are called in auestion. 
But is it not rather singular that all the texts that are 
not true, or that are improperly translated, to Avhich 
Unitarians object, are such as are strongly in favor of 
the Trinity ? 

But, that the above text from 1 John is a part of the 
sacred volume, is evident from several considerations : 
1. There must be a flagrant chasm in the sense, if this 
be removed. It is so necessary to the Apostle'^s argu- 
ment, that the argument is not complete without it. 
And it is abundantly more likely, that these remarka- 
ble words should be left out and obliterated in copies 
made, or kept by the ancient heretics, than that they 
should have been inserted by the orthodox, who have 
authorities enough beside for the doctrine expressed in 
them. 

2. Though some have given up this passage as doubt- 
ful, yet a great majority of those who are competent ta 



178 



DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 



investigate the subject, are in favor of its truth. Among 
these may be found Bengelius, who, as Mr. Wesley- 
says, was the most pious, the most judicious, and the 
most laborious of all modern commentators on the New 
Testament. He, as well as Mr. Wesley, believed this 
text to be genuine, for the following reasons: 

1 . That though it is wanting in many copies, yet it is 
found in more; and those copies of the greatest authority^ 

2. That is cited by a whole train of ancient writers, 
from the time of St. John to that of Constantine. 
This argument is conclusive; for they could not have 
cited it, had it not then been in the sacred canon. 

3. That we can easily account for its being, after that 
time, wanting in many copies, when we remember that 
Constantine's successor was a zealous Arian, who used 
every means to promote his bad cause, to spread Arian^ 
ism throughout the empire ; in particular, the erasing 
this test out of as many copies as fell into his hands. 
And he so far prevailed, that the age in which he lived 
is commonly styled Seculum Arianum^ the Arian age ; 
there being then only one eminent man, who opposed 
him at the peril of his life. So that it was a proverb, 
Aihanasius contra mundum : Athanasius against the 
world." The text under consideration is therefore 
genuine, and a part of the Sacred Scriptures ; and as 
such it contains an unanswerable argument in favor of 
the doctrine of the Trinity ; for it expressly declares 
that, '^There are three that bear record in heaven, the 
Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these 
three are one." 1 John v. 7. 

It has now been shown, that while the Unity of 
God is to be considered a fundamental doctrine of the 
Scriptures, laid down with the utmost solemnity, and 
guarded with the utmost care, by precepts, by threat- 
enings, by promises, by tremendous punishments of 
polytheism and idolatry among the Jews, the very 
names of God, as given in the revelation made of him- 
self, have plural forms and are connected with plural 



DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 



179 



modes of speech ; that other mdications of plurality 
are given in various parts of holy writ ; and that this 
plurality is restricted to three. On those texts, how- 
ever, which in their terms denote a plurality and a 
trinity, the proof does not wholly or chiefly rest." It 
has been shown that there are two distinct persons 
"'^ associated with God in his perfections and incom- 
municable glories, and as performing works of unequiv- 
ocal divine majesty and infinite power, and thus together 
manifesting that tri-unity of the Godhead which the 
true Church has in all ages adored and magnified. 
This k the great proof upon which the doctrine rests. 
- The first of these two persons is the Son, the second 
the Spirit, Of the former, it" has been shown, that 
the titles of Jehovah, Lord, God, King, King of Israel, 
Redeemer, Saviour, and other names of God. are as- 
cribed to him, — that he is invested with the attributes of 
eternity, omnipotence, ubiquity, infinite wisdom, holi- 
ness, goodness, &c., — that he was the Leader, the 
visible King, and the object of the worship of the 
Jews, — that he forms the great subject of prophecy, 
and is spoken of in the predictions of the prophets in 
language, which if applied to men or to angels, would 
by the Jews have been considered not as sacred but 
idolatrous, and which, therefore, except that it agreed 
with their ancient faith, would totally have destroyed 
the credit of those writings, — that he is eminently 
known both in the Old Testament and in the New, as 
the Son of God, an appellative v/hich is sufliciently 
proved to have been considered as implying an assump- 
tion of divinity by the circumstance that, for asserting 
it, our Lord was condemned to die as a blasphemer by 
the Jewish Sanhedrim, — that he became incarnate in 
our nature, — wrought miracles by his own original pow- 
er, and not, as his servants, in the name of another, — 
that he authoritatively forgave sin, — that for the sake 
of his sacrifice, sin is forgiven to the end of the world, 
and for the sake of that alone,— that he rose from the 



180 



DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY, 



dead to seal all these pretensions to divinity, — that he 
is seated upon the throne of the universe, all power 
being given to him in heaven and in earth, — that his 
inspired Apostles exhibit him as the Creator of all 
things visible and invisible; as the true God and the 
eternal life ; as the King eternal, immortal, invisible, 
the only wise God and our Savior, — that they offer to 
him the highest worship, — that they trust in him, and 
command ail others to trust in him for eternal life, — ^that 
he is the head over all things, — that angels worship him 
and render him service, — that he will raise the dead at 
the last day,- — -judge the secrets of men's hearts, and 
finally determine the everlasting state of the righteous 
and the wicked. 

" This is the outline of Scriptural testimony as to 
the Son. As to the divine character of the Spirit, it 
is equally explicit. He too is called Jehovah ; Jehovah 
of Hosts ; God. Eternity, omnipotence, ubiquity, in- 
finite wisdom, and other attributes of Deity, are ascribed 
to him. He is introduced as an agent in the work of 
the creation, and to him is ascribed the conservation of 
all living beings. He is the source of the inspiration 
of Prophets and Apostles ; the object of worship ; the 
efficient agent in illuminating, comforting, and sanctify- 
ing the souls of men. He makes intercession for the 
saints ; quickens the dead, and, finally, he is associated 
with the Father and the Son, in the form of baptism 
into the one name of God, and in the apostolic form of 
benediction, is, equally with them, the source and foun- 
tain of grace and blessedness. These decisive points 
have been established by the express declarations of 
various passages, both of the Old and New Testament. 
The argument, therefore, is, that as on the one hand 
the doctrine of Scripture is, that there is but one God ; 
and, on the other, that throughout both Testaments, 
three persons are, in unequivocal language, and by un- 
equivocal circumstances, declared to be divine ; the 
only conclusion which can harmonize these otherwise 



DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 



181 



opposite, contradictory, and most misleading proposi- 
tions, and declarations, is, that the Three Persons 
ARE one God." 

Having now, as we consider, shown that the doctrine 
of the Trinity is based upon the unshaken authority of 
the word of God, we shall now pass to answ^er some of 
the objections which are urged against it. The first 
and most common objection is, that this doctrine is 
mysterious and incomprehensible. To this Mr. Wes- 
ley very conclusively replies. 

Here is a twofold mistake: 1. We do not require 
you to believe any mystery in this ; whereas you sup- 
pose the contrary. But, 2, You do already believe 
many things Vv'hich you cannot comprehend. 

To begin with the latter : You do already believe 
many things which you cannot comprehend. For you 
believe there is a sun over your head. But whether 
he stands still in the midst of his system, or not only 
revolves on his own axis, but ^rejoiceth as a giant to 
run his course you cannot comprehend either one or 
the other: how he moves, or how he rests. By what 
power, what natural, mechanical power, is he upheld 
in the fluid ether ? You cannot deny the fact : yet you 
cannot account for it, so as to satisfy any rational in- 
quirer. You may, indeed, give us the hypothesis of 
Ptolemy, Tycho Brahe, Copernicus, and twenty more. 
I have read them over and over : I am sick of them ; I 
care not three straws for them all. 

' Each new solution but once more affords 
New change of terms, and scaffolding of words : 
In other garb my question I receive, 
And take my doubt the very same I gave.' 

Still I insist, the fact you believe, you cannot deny ; 
but the manner you cannot comprehend. 

You believe there is such a thing as light, whe- 
ther flow*ing from the sun, or any other luminous body ; 
but you cannot comprehend either its nature, or the 
manner wherein it flows. How does it move from Jupi- 
16 



182 



TJOCTBINE OF THE TRINITY. 



ler to the earth in eight minutes ; two hundred thousand 
miles in a moment ? How do the rays of the candle^ 
brought into the room, instantly disperse into every cor- 
ner ? Again, here are three candles, yet there is but 
one hght. Explain this, and I will explain the three- 
one God. 

You believe there is such a thing as air. It 

both covers you as a garment, and^ 

'Wide interfused, 
EmlDraces round tliis florid earth.' 

But can y^ou comprehend how ? Can you give me a 
satisfactory account of its nature, or the cause of its 
properties ? Think only of one, its elasticity : can you 
account for this ? It may be owing to electric fire at- 
tached to each particle of it : it may not ; and neither 
you nor I can tell. But if we will not breathe it till 
we can comprehend it our life is very near its period. 

" You believe there is such a thing as earth. 
Here you fix your foot upon it : you are supported by 
it. But do you comprehend what it is that supports 
the earth? ''Oh, an Elephant;'' says a Malabarian 
philosopher, ^'and a bull supports him.'' But what 
supports the bull ? The Indian and the Briton are 
equally at a loss for an answer. We know it is God 
that ^^spreadeth the north over the empty space, and 
hangeth the earth upon nothing." This is the fact. 
But how? Who can account for this? Perhaps an- 
gelic, but not human creatures. 

I know what is plausibly said concerning the poAv- 
ers of projection and attraction. But spin as fine as 
we can, matter of fact sweeps away our cobweb hypo- 
thesis. Connect the force of projection and attraction 
how you can, they will never produce a circular mo- 
tion. The moment the projected steel comes within 
the attraction of the magnet, it does not fomi a curve, 
but drops down. 

You believe you have a soul connected with 
this house of clay. But can you comprehend how ? 



DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. I8S 

What are the ties that unite the heavenly flame with the 
earthly clod? You understand just nothing of the 
matter. So it is ; but how, none can tell. 

" You surely believe you have a body, together 
with your soul, and that each is dependant on the other* 
Run only a thorn into your hand ; immediately pain is 
felt in your soul. On the other side, is shame felt in 
your soul ? Instantly a blush overspreads your cheek. 
Does the soul feel fear or violent anger ? Presently the 
body trembles. These also are facts which you cannot 
deny ; nor can you account for them. 

I bring out but one instance more : at the com- 
mand of your soul, your hand is lifted up. But who is 
able to account for this ? For the connection between 
the act of the mind, and the outward actions ? Nay, 
who can account for muscular motion at all ; in any in- 
stance of it whatever? When one of the most ingenious 
physicians in England had finished his lecture upon that 
head, he added, 'Now, gentlemen, I have told you all 
the discoveries of our enlightened age and now, if you 
understand one jot of the matter, you understand more 
than I do.^ 

" The short of the matter is this : those who will not 
believe any thing but what they can comprehend, must 
not believe that there is a sun in the firmament ; that 
there is light shining around them; that there is air, though 
it encompasses them on every side ; that there is any 
earth, though they stand upon it. They must not believe 
that they have a soul ; no, nor that they have a body. 

" But, secondly, as strange as it may seem, in re- 
quiring you to believe, that 'there are three that bear 
record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy 
Ghost ; and these three are one f you are not required 
to believe any mystery. Nay, that great and good man. 
Dr. Peter Browne, some time Bishop of Cork, has 
proved at large, that the Bible does not require you to- 
believe any mystery at all. The Bible barely requires 
yon to believe such facts, not the manner of them*. 



184 



DOCTRIXE OF THE TRINITY, 



Now the mysteiy does not lie in the fact, but ahogether 
in the manner, 

^' For instance : -God said, let there be light : and 
there was light.' I believe it : I believe the plain fact. 
There is no mystery at all in this. The mystery lies 
in the manner of it. But of this I believe nothing at 
all : nor does God require it of me. 

Again : • The Word was made flesh.' I believe 
this fact also. There is no mystery in it ; but as to the 
manner, hoic he was made tiesh. v>-herein the mysteiy 
lies I know nothing about it : I believe nothing about 
it : it is no more the object of my faith, than it is of my 
understanding. 

To apply this to the case before us : There 
are three that bear record in heaven ; and these three 
are one.' I believe this fact also, (if I may use the 
expression.) that God is three and one. But the man- 
ner, how, I do not comprehend : and I do not believe 
it. ?sow in this, in the manner, lies the mysteiy ; 
and so it may ; I have no concern with it : it is no 
object of my faith : I believe just so much as God 
has revealed; and no more. But this, the manner, he 
has not revealed ; therefore. I believe nothing about it. 
But would it not be absurd in me to deny the fact, be- 
cause I do not understand the manner ? That is. to 
reject icliat God has revealed, because I do not com- 
prehend ichat he has not revealed. 

This is a point much to be observed. There 
are many things -'which eye hath not seen, nor ear 
heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man to 
conceive.' Parr of these God hath ^revealed to us by 
his Spirit:' — 'Revealed:' that is. unveiled, uncovered: 
that part he requires us to believe. Part of them he 
has not revealed : that we need not. and indeed, cannot 
believe : it is far above, out of our sight. 

?Sow where is the wisdom of rejecting what is re- 
vealed, because we do not understand what is not re- 
vealed ? Of denying the fact^ which God has unveiled 



DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 



185 



because we cannot see the manner, which is veiled still ? 

Especially when we consider that what God 
has been pleased to reveal upon this head, is far from 
being a point of indifference ; is a truth of the last im- 
portance. It enters into the very heart of Christianity : 
it lies at the root of all vital religion. 

Unless these three are one, how can ^all men 
honor the Son, even as they honor the Father?' 
"I know not what to do,' says Socinus, in a letter to 
his friend, Svith my untoward followers : they will not 
worship Jesus Christ. I tell them, it is written, 'Let 
all the angels of God worship him.' They answer, 
^However that be, if he is not God, we dare not wor- 
ship him.' For ' it is written, thou shalt worship the 
Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.' " 

It is objected that this doctrine is contradictory. 
This objection is founded upon the supposition that 
being and person are the same ; and upon this begged 
supposition it is argued that it is a contradiction to say 
that three persons can exist in the Godhead. But, be- 
fore this objection will have any force upon the minds 
of reflecting persons, L^nitarians will have to prove that 
person and being are the same, and that God cannot 
exist in three persons. This they have as yet failed of 
doing. While it has been demonstrated from the sacred 
Scriptures that there are three that bear record in hea- 
ven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost ; and 
that these three are one. We are, therefore, not to un- 
derstand by the word persons, when applied to the 
Godhead, some separate existences of a different nature, 
but united persons in the same nature. The persons in 
Jehovah are co-equal in all his perfections and attri- 
butes ; but, with regard to the redemption of man, there 
is a gradation, or succession, in their respective opera- 
tions. In these operations, they personally act^ yet 
unitedly concur. The Son, for instance, redeemed by 
his incarnation and death : But the Father and Spirit 
were in Christ, co-existent at the same time. The 
16^ 



186 



BOCTKINE OF -rSE TRINITY. 



Spirit also is the Comforter sent from the Father by 
Christ : and yet Christ, by union of nature with him, 
is always present with his people, in whom that Spirit 
dv/ells with himself, to the end of the world. Thus, 
God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself; 
thus Christ is in the Father, and the Father in him ; 
thus God dwelleth in his people, and they in God, be- 
cause of the Spirit, which (as one with himself) he hath 
given them. Hence, these divine persons are not mere- 
ly of Wke essence, but of the same essence: not separate 
existences, but one co-equal and co-eternal existence. 
They are distinguished from each other in manifesta- 
tion^ or person, but not in nature, substance, divinity, 
power, or glory. Mewed in this light, all appearance 
of contradiction disappears, and the above objection 
looses all its force. Besides, it should be remembered 
that there are facts which appear to be contradictory, 
when compared to other subjects, which in themselves 
are perfectly consistent, 

^•'In the course of the blood, vs^hich runs upwards as 
well as downwards, through the human system, we wit- 
ness a fact which is contrary to the general laws of 
nature, but consistent in itself. It would be a contra- 
diction to say that a man can go ten miles as soon as 
one ; but it would not in speaking of thought, which 
can ascend to a star as soon as to the top of a spire, or 
light upon Hindoston as soon as upon the Hudson, 
And it would be such also, for any one to say I am in 
the house and the house in me, but it would not be, 
were he speaking of iron and fire : for the iron may be 
in the fire and the fire in the iron : nor yet would it be 
when speaking of God and christians, for the Bible 
says, ^^They that dwell in love dwell in God and God 
in them." If natural things, when compared together, 
may appear to be contradictory, and yet not be reallif 
so, how obvious is it that the reputed contradiction, that 
it is said consists in comparing the Trinity with corpo- 
real substances, is visionary and false. 



DOCTRIXE OF THE TRINITY. 



187 



Our opponents intimate that the contradiction con- 
sists in our saying that three times one are one. This 
is a false representation of our sentiments. Our doc- 
trine requires of us only to maintain that, three, or any 
other numher more than one. mjiy exist in one. 

Of the possibiht}' of this. A\'e have examples in very 
ordinary things. In the study of letu^rs it appears that 
marks make letters and letters syllable-, words. See. 
Instance the letter H which is constituted of two strait 
marks connected by a hyphen. These three marks 
make one letter : also the English spelling of the word 
God. which depends on three letters for its existence, 
though it is but one word. These remarks are not 
made to convey an idea that tliese things represent the 
nature of the Deity, for. as I have said. I think it ex- 
tremely preposterous to attempt a representation of his 
nature, by aiiy thina" in the circle of the universe. He 
has told us in his word what he is. and it is our dutv to 
beheve him : but they are made merely to show that 
THREE may exist in oxe. and our languaize of "'three 
PERSONS in ONE GoD.'' is not so inconsistent as our op- 
posers represent it to be. 

Should it be said. that, if the three persons consti- 
tute but one God. it would be improper to apply the 
word God to either of them separately. I would re- 
mark, that in the scriptures, the v-v ord is applied to 
them, and what God has said we cannot justly alter; 
but it is impossible to use it in reference to one without 
\dewing it in relation to the others. \\\\o are as really 
■ -^ God as the one to whom we directly apply it. as the 
' miion of persons, if it exist at all. has a permanent ex- 
istence, and cannot be dissolved without destroyin^r the 
ver}^ existence of Deity.'" — Lucicey, 

L^nitarians have -also objected to this doctrine because 
the terms which are now used to express it. such as 
Trmity and person, are not found in the Scriptures. If 
this proceeded from a real regard to what the Scriptures 
revealed, it would deserve the more attention ; but when 



188 



DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 



the objection is raised merely for cavillation, as without 
breach of charity, it may be affirmed has often been the 
case, it is sufficient to say, that if men will abide only 
by terms of Scripture, it will be absolutely necessary 
for them to use the Scripture only in the two languages 
of Hebrew and Greek, in which they are written. For 
if there be any force in such an argument, it lies against 
every translation in the w^orld, because these alter the 
terms, and sometimes impose a sense upon them which 
not only is contrary to the sense which other men may 
affix, but in some instances wide enough from the ori- 
ginal. In such a case, there wmild be no allowable 
divinity but what m^ight appear in Greek and Hebrew, 
to the great edification, no doubt, of the common peo- 
ple, who happen to have souls as well as rabbles and 
philosophers, and who in general are at least as desir- 
ous of their salvation. The truth is, the terms used in 
this and other cases would not offend, if the things 
which the terms signify were not disagreeable to those 
who make the above objection. We know, as well as 
these objectors, that the words trinity, incarnation^ per- 
son^ essence, and such like, are not to be found in the 
Bible ; but w^e also know that the truths which these 
w^ords relate to are not only to be found there, but are 
the very sum and substance of it. If these terms con- 
vey the notion of these truths, they answer the use of 
all terms, which is to communicate the knowledge of 
things. And as to the terms themselves, they were 
first employed in opposition to the various heretics by 
the fathers of the Church, for a clearer and more full 
expression of their doctrines, and have been very prop- 
^ly retained to this day. 



ORIGINAL STATE OF MAN. 



189 



CHAPTER VL 

THE ORIGINAL STATE OF MAN. 

Having, in the preceding chapters, confined ourselves 
mostly to the all important subject of the Trinity, we 
now pass from that to another, in which we are all in like 
manner deeply interested, viz : the Character and Con- 
dition of Man. In the present chapter, however, we 
shall confine ourselves to a consideration of his charac- 
ter in his primeval state, in which it will be our object 
to show that he was created holy ; a point which is de- 
nied by many Unitarians. 

1. Man was the effect of a holy cause. Godcre- 
ted man ; and as man was passive, and not active, in 
his own creation, he could have possessed no nature, 
powers, nor even tendencies of powers, which he did 
not receive from the plastic hand of his Creator. God 
imparted to man all that he possessed when he first awoke 
to conscious being, even the first breath he drew ; hence 
if man contained in his nature any moral evil, God 
must have been its author. Man's body, which was 
formed of the earth, must have been a lifeless and irra- 
tional form of matter ; and could not have possessed 
moral quality, before it was animated by a rational 
soul ; all, therefore, that man possessed in his first exist- 
ence that was moral was imparted to him when God 
breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and consti- 
tuted him a living soul ; therefore, if man was morally 
corrupt, or contained in his nature any propensity to 
evil, it must have been infused by Jehovah's breath ! 
Now as God is holy, nothing but holiness could have 
proceeded from him ; man, therefore, must have been 
holy in his first existence; as he came from the hands of 
his Divine Author. 



190 



ORIGINAL STATE OF MAN. 



2. " ' God created man in his own image.' Gen. L 
27. By the image of God, in this text, we understand 
the moral hkeness of God, consisting in righteousness 
and true hohness. No other consistent explanation can 
be given of the subject. It would be absurd to say that 
the image of God consists in bodily form, for if form be 
applied to the Deity, such form must be bounded by 
geometrical limits ; which is opposed to infinity and om- 
nipresence, perfections which are essential to the Su- 
preme Being. Nor can it be consistently said, that the 
image of God wherein man was created, consisted in 
his having authority over the other creatures, which 
God created, as his vicegerent on earth, for this was 
only a circumstance in his being, and not an image in 
which he was made. Gen. i. 26 : ^ God said let U3 
make man in our own image, and let him have domin- 
ion,' he. Here man's creation in the image of God^ 
and his having dominion, are marked as two distinct cir« 
cunistances ; the one refers to his creation, the other to 
the design of his creation, or to the circumstances in 
which he was placed after he was created. Man was 
(treated in the image of God, but he did not possess 
dominion until after he was created ; therefore, the im- 
age of God in which he was created could not have con^- 
sisted in his having authority over this lower world, as 
God's vicegerent, because the image existed before he 
possessed the authority : he was created in the image, 
but the authority was given him after he was created^ 
It must appear equally absurd to contend, as some have, 
that the image of God in which man was created consist- 
ed exclusively in the immortality of his soul. There is 
no evidence that God's immortality consists in his image 
any more than his justice, holiness, or any other perfec- 
tion of his nature. Immortality is one of the Divine 
perfections, and if one of the perfections of God be 
embraced in the image which he stamped upon his ra- 
tional offspring, it is reasonable to suppose that every 
communicable perfection of the Divine nature must ba 



ORIGINAL STATE OF MAN. 



191 



embraced to render the image complete ; wherefore we 
conclude, that as man was created in the Divine image^ 
he received from the plastic hand that formed him, the 
stamp of every communicable perfection of the Divine 
nature ; nor is holiness the least prominent among these 
perfections, as God has revealed himself in the Bible. 
But this view of the subject does not depend upon ab- 
stract speculations upon the perfections of God, for it is 
based on the declarations of his word. Eph. iv. 24 : 
' And that ye put on the new man which, after God, is 
created in righteousness and true holiness.' By the new- 
man which we are here exhorted to put on, we under- 
stand the true Christian character. This, the text in- 
forms us, is created after God, i. e., after the likeness or 
imao;e of God, and this is ' in righteousness and true 
holiness.' The image of God, then, consists in right- 
eousness and true holiness ; and as man was created in 
this image, he must have been holy ; not merely free 
from unholiness, but postively holy ; for he shone in the 
Divine image, which consists in righteousness and trm 
holiness. 

3. We infer man's primitive holiness from the seal 
of the Divine approbation which was set upon him by 
his Maker. Gen. i. 31. ^ And God saw everything 
that he had made, and behold it was very good,^ As 
this was spoken of all the works of God, its meaning 
must be, that every thing was very good of its kind ; 
the world was a good world, and the man that was cre- 
ated to people it was a good man. Now as man was 
a rational being, a moral agent, and destined to lead the 
career of this vast world, when God pronounced him 
good, it must have been with reference to him, such as 
he was, a moral being ; he must, therefore, have been 
good in a moral sense. This clearly proves that man 
was not only free from all moral evil, but that he was 
positively good, or possessed real moral virtue. If, as 
some now assert, all moral good and moral evil consist 
in voluntary action, man being neither holy nor unholy 



192 



ORIGINAL STATE OF MAN. 



until he puts forth his voUtions, the text under considera- , 
tion, which asserts that he was very good, cannot be / 
true ; for in such case, it would be as correct to assert 
that he was very bad, as it would to pronounce him 
good. It must be perfectly plain that to assert that man 
w^as very good, because he was free from all moral evil, 
"would be no more true than it would be to declare 
that he was very bad because he possessed no moral 
hohness. 

4. " One quotation from the pen of inspiration shall / 
close the subject of man's primitive holiness. Eccl. vii. 
29 : 'Lo this only have I found, that God hath made 
man upright, but they sought out many inventions.' 
That this text relates to man's moral rectitude, and not 
to the erect posture of his body, appears from two con- 
siderations. 

This is the sense in which the word upright is uni- 
formly employed in the Scriptures. Ps. vii. 10: ^My 
defence is in God, who saveth the upright in heart.' 
Prov._ xi. 9 : ' The righteousness of the upright shall 
deliver him.' See, also, Ps. xi. 7 ; xviii. 23, 25 ; xix. 
13 ; XXX vii. 37 ; Prov. xi. 20 ; xii. 6. The above, to 
which many more references might be added, are suffi- 
cient to show that the term upright is uniformly used to 
signify moral rectitude. 

In the text under consideration the inspired writer - 
represents his discovery of the fact that God made man 
upright, to be the fruit of labored investigation, which 
could not be the case if he alluded to the upright pos- 
ture of his body. It v>^ould reflect no great honor on > 
the intellect of the inspired penman to understand him 
as saying, that he had numbered a thousand persons, 
one by one, examining each, to learn that God had cre- 
ated man to stand erect in opposition to the quadruped 
race. It is clear, then, that God made man upright in 
a moral sense, and if so, he must have been free from 
moral evil on one hand, and possessed moral virtue on 
the other."— jLee. 



FALL OF 3IAN. 



193 



CHAPTER VII. 

THE FALL OF MAN. 

As Unitarians generally deny the fall of man, it will 
be our object in this chapter to estabhsh this important 
doctrine of the Christian system ; and, in the first place, 
in support of this doctrine, we urge the iMosaic account 
of this event, which is, that a garden having been 
planted by the Creator, for the use of man, he was 
placed in it^ ^ to dress it and to keep it that in this 
garden two trees v/ere specially distinguished, one as 
' the tree of hfe,' the other as ' the tree of the know- 
ledge of good and evil that from eating of the latter^ 
Adam was restrained by positive interdict, and by the 
penalty, ^ in the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt sure- 
ly die that the serpent, who was more subtle than any 
beast of the field, tempted the vvoman to eat, by deny- 
ing that death would be the consequence, and by as- 
suring her that her eyes and her husband's eyes ^ would 
be opened,' and that they would 'be as gods, knowing 
good and evil that the vv^oman took of the fruit, gave 
it to her husband who also ate ; that for this act of dis- 
obedience, they were expelled from the garden, made 
subject to death, and laid under other maledictions. 

That this history should be the subject of much 
criticism " by Unitarians, is not a matter of surprise ; for 
taken in its natural and obvious sense, along with the 
comments of the subsequent Scriptures, it teaches the 
doctrines of the existence of an evil, tempting, invisi- 
ble spirit, going about seeking whom he may deceive 
and devour ; of the introduction of a state of moral 
corruptness into human nature, which has been transmit- 
ted to all men ; and of a vicarious atonement for sin," 
to all of which Unitarians stand opposed ; they there- 
17 



194 



FALL OF MAN* 



fore endeavor to evade the argument founded upon this 
history in favor of the fall of man, by resolving the part 
now under consideration into an allegory, or an instruc- 
tive fable ; but no writer of true history would mix 
plain matter of fact with allegory in one continued nar- 
rative, without any intimation of a transition from one 
to the other. If, therefore, any part of this narrative 
be matter of fact, no part is allegorical. On the other 
hand, if any part be allegorical, no part is naked mat- 
ter of fact; and the consequence of this will be, that 
every thing in every part of the whole narrative must 
be allegorical. If the formation of the woman out of 
the man be allegory, the woman must be an allegorical 
woman. The man therefore must be an allegorical man ; 
for of such a man only the allegorical woman will be a 
meet companion. If the man is allegorical, his Paradise 
must be an allegorical garden ; the trees that grew in it, 
allegorical trees ; the rivers that watered it, allegorical 
rivers ; and thus we may ascend to the very beginning 
of creation ; and conclude, at last, that the heavens are 
allegorical heavens, and the earth an allegorical earth. 
Thus the whole history of the creation will be an alle- 
gory, of which the real subject is not disclosed ; and in 
this absurdity, the scheme of allegorizing ends.'^ — 
Horsley, 

But that the account of Moses is to be taken as a 
matter of real history, and according to its literal import, 
is established by two considerations, against which as 
being facts nothing can successfully be urged. The 
first is, that the account of the fall of the first pair is a 
part of a continuous history. The creation of the 
world, of man, of woman ; the planting of the garden 
of Eden, and the placing of man there ; the duties and 
prohibitions laid upon him ; his disobedience ; his ex- 
pulsion from the garden ; the subsequent birth of his 
children, their lives and actions, and those of their pos- 
terity, down to the flood ; and, from that event, to the 
life of Abraham, are given in the same plain and un- 



FALL OF MAN. 



195 



adorned narrative, brief, but yet simple, and with no in- 
timation at all, either from the elevation of the style or 
otherwise, that a fable or allegory is in any part intro- 
duced. If this, then, be the case, and the evidence of it 
lies upon the very face of the history, it is clear, that if 
the account of the fall be excerpted from the whole nar- 
rative as allegorical, any subsequent part, from Abel to 
Noah, from Noah to Abraham, from Abraham to Moses, 
may be excerpted for the same reason, which is neither 
more nor less than this, that it does not agree with the 
theological opinions of the interpreter; and thus the 
whole of the Pentateuch may be rejected as a history, 
and converted into a fable. One of these consequen- 
ces must, therefore, follow, either that the account of 
the fall must be taken as history, or the historical char- 
acter of the whole five books of Moses must be unset- 
tled ; and if none but infidels will go to the latter con- 
sequence, then no one who admits the Pentateuch to be 
a true history generally, can consistently refuse to admit 
the story of the fall of the first pair to be a narrative of 
real events. 

" The other indisputable fact to which I have just 
now adverted, as establishing the literal sense of the his- 
tory, is that, as such, it is referred to and reasoned upon 
in various parts of Scripture. 

" Job XX. 4, 5 : ^ Knowest thou not this of old, since 
man was placed upon earth, that the triumphing of the 
wicked is short, and the joy of the hypocrite but for a 
moment ?' The first part of the quotation ' might as 
well have been rendered, since Adam was placed on 
the earth. There is no reason to doubt but that this 
passage refers to the fall and the first sin of man. The 
date agrees, for the knowledge here taught is said to 
arise from facts as old as the first placing of man upon 
earth, and the sudden punishment of the iniquity cor- 
responds to the Mosaic account — the triumphing of the 
wicked is short, his joy but for a moment,' 



196 



FALL OF MAN. 



" Job xxxi. 33 : ^ If I covered my transgression as 
Adam, by hiding my inquity in my bosom.' 

" Job XV. 14 : ' What is man, that he should be clean ? 
and he that is born of a woman, that he should be right- 
eous ?' Why not clean ? Did God make woman or 
man unclean at the beginning ? If he did^, the expos- 
tulation would have been more apposite, and m^uch 
stronger, had the true cause been assigned, and Job had 
said, ' How canst thou expect cleanness in man, whom 
thou createdst unclean ?' But, as the case now stands^ 
the expostulation has a plain reference to the introduc- 
tion of vanity and corruption by the sin of the woman^ 
and is an evidence that this ancient writer w^as sensible 
of the evil consequence's of the fall upon the whole 
race of man. ^ Eden ' and ^ garden of the Lord ' are 
also frequently referred to in the Prophets. We have 
the ^ tree of life ' mentioned several times in the Prov- 
erbs and in the Revelation. ^ God,' says SolomoUy 
' made man upright.' The enemies of Christ and his 
Church are spoken of, both in the Old and New Tes- 
taments, under the names of ' the serpent,' and 'the 
dragon ;' and the habit of the serpent to lick the dust 
is also referred to by Isaiah. 

If the history of the fall, as recorded by Moses^ 
were an allegory, or any thing but a literal history, 
several of the above allusions would have no meaning ; 
but the matter is put beyond all possible doubt in the 
New Testament, unless the same culpable liberties be 
taken with the interpretation of the words of our Lord 
and of St. Paul as wath those of the Jewish law^giver. 
Our Lord says. Matt. xix. 4, 5, ' Have ye not read, that 
he which made them at the beginning, made them male 
and female ; and said. For this cause shall a man leave 
father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife ; and 
they twain shall be one flesh ?' This is an argument on 
the subject of divorces, and its foundation rests upon 
two of the facts recorded by Moses. 1. That God 
made at first but two human beings^, from whom all the 



FALL OF MAN. 197 

rest have sprung. 2. That the intimacy and indissolu- 
bility of the marriage relation rests upon the formation 
of the woman from the man ; for our Lord quotes the 
words in Genesis, where the obligation of man to cleave 
to his wife is immediately connected with that circum- 
stance. ^And Adam said. This is now bone of my 
bone, and flesh of my flesh : she shall be called woman, 
because she was taken out of man. Therefore shall a 
man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave 
unto his wife ; and they shall be one flesh.' This is 
sufiiciently in proof that both our Lord and the Phari- 
sees considered this early part of the history of Moses 
as a narrative ; for otherwise, it would neither have been 
a reason, on his part, for the doctrine which he was in- 
culcating, nor have had any force of conviction as to 
them. ' In Adam,' says the Apostle Paul, ' all die 
^ by one man sin entered into the world.' ^ But I fear, 
lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through 
his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from 
the simplicity that is in Christ.' In the last passage, 
the instrument of the temptation is said to be a serpent, 
and Eve is represented as being first seduced, according 
to the account in Genesis, This St. Paul repeats, in 
1 Tim. ii. 13, 14. ^Adam was first formed, then Eve. 
And Adam was not deceived, (first, or immediately,) 
but the woman beino; deceived was in the transo-ression.' 
And oflfers this as the reason of his injunction, ' Let the 
woman learn in silence with all subjection.' When, 
therefore, it is considered that these passages are intro- 
ced not for rhetorical illustration, or in the way of 
classical quotation, but are made the basis of grave rea- 
sonings, which embody some of the most important 
doctrines of the Christian revelation ; and of important 
social duties and points of Christian order and deco- 
rum ; it would be to charge the writers of the New 
Testament with the grossest absurdity, with even cul- 
pable and unworthy trifling, to suppose them to argue 
from the history of the fall as a narrative, when they 
17=^ 



198 



f ALL Of MAtt^ 



knew it to be an allegory; and if we are, therefore^ 
compelled to allow that it was understood as a real 
history by our Lord and his inspired Apostles, those 
speculations of modern critics^ which convert it into a 
parable, stand branded with their true character of infi- 
del and semi-infidel termerity."^ — Watson. 

Having thus established the fall of the first man, we 
now propose proAdng that all men are born into the 
world with a corrupt or depraved nature. 

L " We argue the general corruption of human nature 
from the fall and corruption of the first man, from whom 
all men have received their existence by way of natural 
descent. 

^' We have shown, in the preceding chapter, that the 
first man was created in righteousness and true holiness, 
that he bore the impress of the hand that made him, and 
shone in the likeness of his divine Author. Now as 
righteousness and true holiness constituted the moral 
character or nature of man, as he came from the hand 
of his Creator, it must follow that this divine image was 
designed for his descendants^ and would have been 
communicated to them, had he not sinned and lost it 
himself, while all men were yet in his loins. If, then, 
the image of God, wherem the first man was created, 
was designed to have been transmitted to his ofl:spring, 
it must appear reasonable that nothing short of a full 
possession of this image can answer the claims of the 
law of our creation : for it would be absurd to say that 
God created man in a higher state of moral perfection 
than is necessary to ansvrer the claims, and secure the 
glory of the moral government which he exercises over 
the human family ; or that he bestowed on man a de- 
gree of moral holiness, which he did not secure from 
desecration by the direct interposition of moral obliga^ 
tion, or which might be lost or squandered on the part 
of man, without incurring moral guilt. It is clear, 
from this, that any state of human nature which comes 
short of that moral perfection, or that divine image 



FALL OF MAN. 



199 



which God bestowed, when he created man, must be 
regarded as a lapsed state, commg short of that right- 
eousness which the perfect law of our Creator requires, 
and consequently, a sinful state, ^for all unrighteous- 
ness is sin.' If, then, a want of the image of God, 
which consists in righteousness and true holiness, con- 
stitutes a fallen and sinful state, it only remains to show 
farther, that man does not by nature now possess this 
divme image. Now, when Adam sinned, he must have 
lost the image of his Maker ; for it would he absurd to 
suppose that the image of God, consisting in righteous- 
ness and true holiness, could be possessed by man, and 
he be a sinner at the same time, guilty before God, and 
a subject of divine punishment. As vveh might it be 
said, that God could consistently condemn and pour a 
divine curse upon his own image ! As well might it be 
said that sin and holiness once formed a harmonious 
alliance I Tliat Adam was righteous and truly holvj 
and unrighteous, polluted, and guilty, at the same tim.e. 
It is certain, then, that Adam could not have retained 
the imau-e of his Maker after he sinned, and beino' des- 
titute of it himself, he could not communicate it to his 
offspring ; for no being can communicate to another that 
which he does not himself possess.'' — LfCt, 

II. We argue the hereditary depravity of human 
nature from the following facts, for which it is impossible 
to assign any cause, upon the hypothesis of man's nat- 
ural innocence : 

1. '-'That in all ages great, and even general wick- 
edness has prevailed among those large masses of men 
which are called nations. 

So far as it relates to the immediate descendants of 
Adam before the flood ; to all the nations of the hiofh- 
est antiquity ; to the Jews throughout every period of 
their history, down to their final dispersion ; and to the 
empires and other states whose history is involved in 
theirs ; we have the historical evidence of Scripture^ 



200 



FALL OF MAN* 



and much collateral evidence also from their own 
historians. 

To what does this evidence go, but to say the least* 
the actual depravity of the majority of mankind in all 
tliese ages and among all these nations ? As to the race 
before the flood, a murderer sprang up in the first family , 
and the world became increasingly corrupt, until ^ God 
saw that the wickedness of man was great, and that 
every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only 
evil continually ' that all flesh had corrupted their 
way upon earth and that ^ the earth was filled with 
violence through them.' Only Noah was found right- 
eous before God ; and because of the universal wick- 
edness, a wickedness which spurned all warning, and 
resisted all correction, the flood was brought upon the 
world of the ungodly, as a testimony of Divine anger. 

The same course of increasing wickedness is ex- 
hibited in the sacred records as taking place after the 
flood. The building of the to\\'er of Babel was a wick- 
ed act, done by general concert, before the division of 
nations ; this we know from its having excited the Di- 
vine displeasure, though we know not in what the par- 
ticular crime consisted. After the division of nations, 
tlie history of the times of Abraham, Lot, Jacob, Jo- 
seph, and jMoses sufHciently show that idolatry, injustice, 
oppression, and gross sensuahties characterized the peo- 
ple of Caanan, Egypt, and every other country men- 
tioned in the Mosaic narrative. 

The obstinate inclination of the Israelites to idola- 
try, through all ages to the Babylonish captivity, and 
the general prevalence of vice among men, is acknowl- 
edged in every part of the Old Testament. Their 
moral wickedness after their return from Babylon, 
when they no longer practiced idolatry, and were, 
therefore, delivered from that most fruitful source of 
crime, may be collected from the writers of the Old 
Testament who lived after that event ; and their gen- 
eral corruption in the time of our Lord and his Apos- 



FALL OF MAN. 



201 



ties stands forth with disgusting prominence in the wri- 
tings of JosephuS; their own historian. 

As to all other ancient nations, of whom we have 
any history, the accounts agree in stating the general 
prevalence of practical immorality and of malignant 
and destructive passions ; and. if we had no such ac- 
knowledgments from themselves ; if no such reproaches 
were mutually cast upon each other : if history were 
not, as indeed it is, a record of crimes, in action and in 
detail ; and if poets, moralists, and satirists did not all 
give their evidence, by assuming that men were in- 
fluenced by general principles of vice, expressing them- 
selves in particular modes in different ages, the follow- 
ing great facts would prove the case : 

^•'The fact of general religious error, and that 
in the very fundamental principles of religion, such as 
the existence of one only God : which universal corrup- 
tion of doctrine among all the ancient nations mentioned 
above, shows both indifference to truth and hostility 
against it, and therefore proves, at least, the general 
corruption of men's hearts, of A\ hich even indifference 
to rehgious truth is a sufficient indication. 

^* The universal prevalence of idolatry, which not 
only argues great debasement of intellect, but deep 
wickedness of heart, because, in all ages, idolatry has 
been more or less immoral in its influence, and generally 
grossly so, by leading directly to sanguinary and im- 
pure practices. 

The prevalence of superstition wherever idolatry 
has prevailed, and often when that has not existed, is 
another proof. The essence of this evil is the transfer 
of fear and hope from God to real or imaginary crea- 
tures and things, and so is a renunciation of allegiance 
to God, as the Governor of the world, and a practical 
denial either of his being or his providence. 

^•Aggressive wars, in the guih of which all nations 
and all uncivilized tribes have been, in all ages involved^ 



202 



FALL OF MAN. 



and which necessarily suppose hatred^ revenge, cruelty^ 
injustice, and ambition. 

" In all Heathen nations, idolatry, superstition, fraud, 
oppression, and vices of almost every description show 
the general state of society to be exceedingly and even 
destructively corrupt ; and though Mohammedan na- 
tions escape the charge of idolatry, yet pride, avarice, 
oppression, injustice, cruelty, sensuality, and gross 
superstition, are all prevalent among them. 

" The case of Christian nations, though in them im- 
morality is more powerfully checked than in any other, 
and many bright and influential examples of the high- 
est virtue are found among their inhabitants, sufficient- 
ly proves that the majority are corrupt and vicious in 
their habits. The impiety and profaneness ; the ne- 
glect of the fear and worship of God ; the fraud and 
villany continually taking place in the commerce of 
mankind ; the intemperance of various kinds which is 
found among all classes ; the oppression of the poor ; 
and^many other evils, are in proof of this ; and, indeed, 
we may confidently conclude, that no advocate of the 
natural innocence of man will contend that the majori- 
ty of men, even in this country, are actually virtuous 
in their external conduct, and much less that the fear 
and love of God and habitual respect to his will, which 
are, indeed, the only principles which can be deemed 
to constitute a person righteous, influence the people at 
large, or even any very large proportion of them. 

^' The fact, then, is established, which was before 
laid down, that men in all ages and in all places have, 
at- least, been generally wicked. 

" 2. The second fact to be accounted for is, the 
strength of that tendency to the wickedness which we 
have seen to be general. 

The strength of the corrupting principle, whatever 
it may be, is marked by two circumstances. 

The first is, the greatness of the crimes to which 
men have abandoned themselves. 



FALL OF MAN. 



203 



*^If the effects of the corrupt principle had only- 
been manifested in trifling errors, and practical infirmi- 
ties, a softer view of the moral condition in which man 
is born into the world might, probably, have been ad- 
mitted ; but in the catalogue of hum.an crimes, in all 
ages, and among great numbers of all nations, but more 
especially among those nations wdiere there has been 
the least control of religion, and, therefore, where the 
natural dispositions of men have exhibited themselves 
under the simplest and most convincing evidence, we 
find frauds, oppressions, faithlessness, barbarous cruel- 
ties and murders, unfeeling oppressions, falsehoods, 
every kind of uncleanness, uncontrolled anger, deadly 
hatred and revenge, as to their fellow creatures, and 
proud and scornful rebellion against God. 

The second is, the number and influence of the 
checks and restraints against which this tide of wicked- 
ness has urged on its almost resistless and universal 
course. 

^'It has opposed itself against the law of God, in 
some degree found among all men ; consequently, 
against the checks and remorse of conscience ; against 
a settled conviction of the evil of most of the actions 
indulged in, which is shown by their having been 
blamed in others (at least whenever any have suffered 
by them) by those who themselves have been in the 
habit of committing them. 

Against the restraints of human laws, and the au- 
thority of magistrates ; for, in all ancient states, the 
moral corruption continued to spread until they were 
politically dissolved, society not being able to hold itself 
together, in consequence of the excessive height to 
which long indulgence had raised passion and appe- 
tite. 

Against the provision made to check human vices 
by that judicial act of the Governor of the world, by 
which he shortened the life of man, and rendered it un- 
certain, and; at the longest,- brief. 



204 



FALL OF MAN. 



Against another provision made by the Governor 
of the world, in part with the same view, i. e. the 
dooming of man to earn his sustenance by labor, and 
thus providing for the occupation of the greater portion 
^ of time in what was innocent, and rendering the means 
of sensual indulgences more scanty, and the opportuni- 
ties of actual immorality more limited. 

Against the restraints put upon vice by rendering 
it, by the constitution and the very nature of things, 
the source of misery of all kinds and degrees, national, 
domestic, personal, mental, and bodily. 

Against the terrible judgm.ents which God has, in 
all ages, brought upon wicked nations and notorious in- 
dividuals, many of Vvd:iich visitations were known and 
acknowledged to be the signal manifestations of his dis- 
pleasure against their vices. 

Ao;ainst those counteractive and reformino; infiu- 
ences of the revelations of the will and mercy of God, 
which at different times have been vouchsafed to the 
w^orld : as, 'against the light and influence of the patri- 
archal relig-ion before the o^ivino; of the law : ao^ainst the 

O CO ^ o 

Mosaic institute, and the warnings of prophets among 
the Jews ; against the religious knovvdedge which was 
transmitted from them among heathen nations connected 
with their history, at different periods ; against the in- 
fluence of Christianity when introduced into the Roman 
empire, and when transmitted to the Gothic nations, by 
all of whom it v/as grossly corrupted ; and against the 
control of the same Divine religion in our own country, 
where it is exhibited in its purity, and in which the 
most active endeavors are adopted to enlighten and cor- 
rect society. 

It is impossible to consider the number and power 
of these checks without acknowledging, that those prin- 
ciples in human nature which give rise to the mass of 
moral evil which actually exists, and has always existed 
since men began to multiply upon the earth, are most 
powerful and formidable in their tendency. 



FALL OF MAN. 



205 



3. The third fact is, that the seeds of the vices 
which exist in society may be discovered in children in 
their earhest years ; selfishness, envy, pride, resent- 
ment, deceit, lying, and often cruelty ; and so much is 
this the case, so explicitly is this acknowledged by all, 
that it is the principal object of the moral branch of 
education to restrain and correct those evils, both by 
coercion, and by diligently impressing upon children, 
as their faculties open, the evil and mischief of all such 
affections and tendencies, • .. ^ : . : 

4. The fourth fact is, that every man is conscious 
of a' natural tendency to many evils. 

^' These tendencies are different in degree and in 
kind. In some they move to ambition, and pride, 
and excessive love of honor ; in others, to anger, re* 
venge, and implacableness ; in others, to cowardice, 
meanness, and fear ; in others, to avarice, care, and dis- 
trust ; in others, to sensuality and prodigality. But 
v/here is the man who has not his peculiar constitutional 
tendency to some evil in one of these classes ? But 
there are, also, evil tendencies common to all. These 
are, to love creatures more than God ; to forget God ; 
to be indifferent to our obhgations to him ; to regard the 
opinions of men more than the approbation of God : to 
be more influenced by the visible things which surround 
us than by the invisible God, whose eye is ever upon 
us, and by that invisible state to which we are all 
hastening. 

5. The fifth fact is, that, even after a serious wish 
and intention has been formed in men to renounce these 
views, and ^ to live righteously, soberly, and godly,^ as 
becomes creatures made to glorify God and on their 
trial for eternity, strong and constant resistance is made 
by the passions, appetites, and inclinations of the heart 
at every step of the attempt. 

" This is so clearly a matter of universal experience, 
that, in the moral writings of every age and countr}^, 
and in the very phrases and turns of all languages, vir* 
18 



206 



FALL OF MAN* 



tue is associated with difficulty, and represented under 
the notion of a warfare. Virtue has always, therefore, 
been represented as the subject of acquirement: and 
resistance of evil as bemg necessary to its preservation* 
It has been made to consist in self-rule, which is, of 
course, restraint upon opposite tendencies : the mind is 
said to be subject to diseases, and the remedy for these 
diseases is placed in something outward to itself — in re- 
ligion, among inspired men ; in philosophy, among the 
Heathen. 

This constant struggle against the rules and resolves 
of virtue has been acknowledged in all ages, and among 
Christian nations more especially, where, just as the 
knowledge of what the Divine law requires is diffused, 
the sense of the difficulty of approaching to its requisi- 
tions is felt; and in proportion as the efforts made to 
conform to it are sincere, is the despair v/hich arises 
from repeated and constant defeats, when the aid of 
Divine grace is not called in. ' O wretched man that 
I am ! who shall deliver me from the body of this 
death 

'•'•These five facts, above enumerated: — 1. The 
general corruption of manners in all times and countries. 
2. The strength of the tendency in man to evil. 3. The 
early appearance of the principles of various vices in 
children. 4. Every man's consciousness of a natural 
tendency in his mind to one or more evils. 5. That 
general resistance to virtue in the heart, which renders 
education, influence, watchfulness, and conffict neces- 
sary to counteract the force of evil. These facts, 
wdiich, it is presumed, cannot be denied, and which 
have the confirmation of t^history and experience are to 
be accounted for. 

That they are easily and fully accounted for by the 
Scriptural doctrine is obvious. The fountain is bitter, and 
the tree is corrupt ; the bitter stream and the bad fruit 
are, therefore, the natural consequences. But the advo- 
cates of man's natural innocence have no means of ac- 



FAXL OF MAN. 



207 



counting for these moral phenomena, except by refer- 
ring them to bad example and a vicious education. 

Let us take the first. To account for general 
wickedness, they refer to general example. 

'•But, 1. This does not account for the introduction 
of moral wickedness. The children of Adam were not 
bom until after the repentance of our first parents and 
their restoration to the Divine favor. They appear to 
have been his devout worshippers, and to have had ac- 
cess to his • presence,* the visible glory of the Schechi- 
nah. From what example, then, did Cain learn malice, 
hatred, and, finally, murder? Example will not ac- 
count, also, for the too common fact of the children of 
highly vntuous parents becoming immoral ; for, since 
the examples nearest to them and constantly present 
with them are good examples, if the natural disposition 
were as good as this hypothesis assumes, the good ex- 
ample always present ought to be more influential than 
bad examples at a distance, and only occasionally seen 
or heard of. 

2. If men are naturally disposed to good, or only 
not indisposed to it, it is not accounted for, on this 
hypothesis, how ba-d example should have become gene- 
ral, that is, how men should generally have become 
wicked. 

'• If the natural disposition be more in favor of good 
than evil, then there ought to have been more good 
than evil in the world, which is contradicted by fact ; 
if there had been only an indifference in our minds to 
good and evil, then, at least, the quantum of vice and 
virtue in society ought to have been pretty equally 
divided, which is also contrary to fact ; and also it ought 
to have followed from this, that at least all the children 
of virtuous persons would have been virtuous : that, for 
instance, the descendants of Seth would have followed 
in succession the steps of their righteous forefathers, 
though the children of Cain (passing by the difficulty 
of bis own lapse,) should have become vicious. Oa 



/ 



208 FALL OF MAN. 

neither supposition can the existence of a general ey3 
example in the world be accounted for. It oucrht not 
to have existed, and if so, the general corruption of 
mankind cannot be explained by it. 

"3. This very method of explaining the general 
viciousness of society does itself suppose the power of 
bad example ; and, indeed, m this it agrees with univer- 
sal opinion. All the moralists of public and domestic 
life, all professed teachers, all friends of youth, all 
parents have repeated their cautions against evil socie- 
ty to those whom they wished to preserve from vice. 
The writings of moralists. Heathen and inspired, are 
full of these admonitions, and they are embodied in the 
proverbs and wise traditional sayings of all civilized 
nations. But the very force of evil example can only 
be accounted for, by supposing a proneness in youth to 
be corrupted by it. Why should it be more influential 
than good example, a fact universally acknowledged^ 
and so strongly felt that, for one person preserved by 
tlie sole influence of a good example, every body ex- 
pects that a great number would be corrupted by an 
evil one ? But if the hypothesis of man's natural in- 
nocence were true, this ought not to be expected as a 
probable, much less as a certain result. Bad example 
would meet with resistance from a good nature ; and it 
would be much more difficult to influence by bad ex- 
amples than by good ones. 

4. Nor does example account for the other facts in 
the above enumeration. It does not account for that 
strong bias to evil in men, which, in all ages, has borne 
down the most powerful restraints ; for from this ten- 
dency that corrupt general example has sprung, which 
is alleged as the cause of it : and it must, therefore, 
have existed previously, because the general example, 
that is, the general corrupt practice of men is its effect. 
We cannot, in this way, account for the early manifes- 
tation of wrong principles, tempers, and affections in 
children ; since they appear at an age wbea example 



PALL OF MAl^. 



209 



can have little influence, and even when the surround- 
ing examples are good, as well as when they are evil. 
Why, too, should virtue always be found more or less a 
conflict ? so that self-government and self-resistance are, 
in all cases, necessary for its preservation. The exam- 
ple of others will not account for this ; for mere ex- 
ample can only influence when it is approved by the 
judgment ; but here is a case in which evil is not ap- 
proved, in which ' whatsoever things are true, what- 
soever things are pure,' are approved, desired, and 
cultivated ; and yet the resistance of the heart to the 
judgment is so powerful, that a constant warfare and a 
strict command are necessary to perseverance. 

^^Let us, then, see whether a bad education, the 
other cause, usually alleged to account for these facts, 
will be more successful. 

" 1. This cause will no more account for the intro- 
duction of passions so hateful as those of Cain, issuing 
in a fratricide so odious, into the family of Adam, than 
will example. As there was no example of these evils 
in the primeval family, so certainly there was no educa- 
tion which could incite and encourage them. We are, 
also, left still without a reason why, in well-ordered and 
religious families, where education and the example, 
too, is good, so many instances of their inefficacy should 
occur. If bad education corrupts a naturally well-dis- 
posed mind, then a good education ought still more 
powerfully to aflect it, and give it a right tendency. It 
is allowed, that good example and good education are, 
in many instances, effectual ; but we can account for 
them, without giving up the doctrine of the natural cor- 
ruption of the heart. It is, however, impossible for 
those to account for those failures of both example and 
instruction which often take place, since, on the hy- 
pothesis of man's natural innocence and good disposi- 
tion, they ought never to occur, or, at least, but in very 
rare cases, and when some singular counteracting ex- 
ternal causes happen to come into operation. 
18* 



210 



TALL OF MAN. 



2. We may also ask^ how it came to pass, unless 
there were a predisposing cause to it, that education, as 
well as example, should have been generally bad ? Of 
education, indeed, men are usually more careful than 
of example. The lips are often right when the life is 
wrong ; and many practise evil who will not go so far 
as to teach it. If human nature, then, be born pure, 
or, at worst, equally disposed to good and evil, then the 
existence of a generally corrupting system of educa- 
tion, in all countries and among all people, cannot be 
accounted for. We have an efiect either contrary to 
the assigned cause, or one to which the cause is not 
adequate — it is the case of a pure fountain sending forth 
corrupt streams ; or that of a stream which, if turbid, 
has a constant tendency to defecation, and yet becomes 
still more muddy as it flows along its course. 

^^3. It is not, however, the fact, that education is 
directly and universally so corrupting a cause as to ac- 
count for the depravity of mankind. In many instances 
it has been defective; it has often inculcated false 
views of interest and honor ; it has fostered prejudices, 
and even national, though not social, hatreds ; but it 
has only in few cases been employed to teach those 
vices into which men have commonly fallen. In fact^ 
education^ in all countries, has been, in no small degree^ 
opposed to vice ; and, as the majority of the worst peo- 
ple among us would shudder to have their children in- 
structed in the vices which they themselves practise, so, 
in the worst nations of antiquity, the characters of 
schoolmasters were required to be correct, and many 
principles and maxims of a virtuous kind were, doubt- 
less, taught to children. 

" 4. To come to the other facts which must be ac- 
counted for, education is placed upon the same ground 
in the argument as example. The early evil disposi- 
tions in children cannot thus be explained, for they ap- 
pear before education commences ; nor does any man 
refer to education his propensity to constitutional sins ; 



FALL OF MAN. 



211 



the resistance he often feels to good in his heart; his 
proneness to forget God, and to be indifferent to spiritual 
and eternal objects ; all these he feels to be opposed to 
those very principles which his jadgment approves, and 
with which it was furnished by education. 

It is only, then, by the Scriptural account of the 
natural and hereditary corruption of the human race, 
commonly called original sin, that these facts are fully 
accounted for: and as the facts themselves cannot be 
denied," (Watson.) it must follow that man is fahen, 
and now possesses a corrupt and sinful nature, from 
which all his unholy passions and actions flow. 

lit. If human nature is not depraved and sinful, but 
perfecilv holv, a doctrine for which the compiler of this 
work has heard many Unitarians contend, especially the 
Rev. James Haves, who advocated it, in the controversy 
alluded to on the 37th page of this work: a doctrine, 
too, which may be found in the writing's of all Unitari- 
ans who have written upon tins subject, then infants do 
not stand in need of the merits of Christ, for they have 
no sin for which to atone ; consequentlv, they must be 
saved independent of the blood of the Saviour, and, 
therefore, can never join in the enraptured song of the 
redeemed, ^-'unto him that loved us and washed us from 
our sins in his own blood — to him be glory both now 
and forever." There mu^t. therefore, if the doctrine of 
original sin, or hereditary, be denied, be a jar in the 
notes of Glory. But tiiis cannot possibly be. There- 
fore, the doctrine of the natural corruption of human 
nature must be true. 

^' IV. The death and sufterings to which children 
are subject, is a proof that all men, from their birth, 
are ' constituted,' as the Apostle has it, and treated as 
' sinners.' An innocent creature may die ; no one dis- 
putes that ; but to die was not the original law of our 
species, and the Scriptures refer death solely to sin as 
its cause. Throughout the sacred writings, too, it is re- 
presented as a penalty, as an evil of the highest kind ; 



312 



i^ALL OF MAN. 



and it is in vain to find out ingenious reasons to prove it 
a blessing to mankind. They prove nothing against 
the directly opposite character which has been stamped 
upon death and the suffering of moral disease^ by the 
testimony of God. On the hypothesis of man's natural 
innocencej the death of the innocent is not to be re- 
conciled to any known attribute of God^ to any mani- 
fested principle of his moral government ; but on that 
of his natural corruptness and federal relation to Adam 
it is explained : it is a declaration of God's hatred of 
sin ; a proclamation of the purity and inflexibility of 
his law ; while the connection of this state, with the 
provisions of the covenant of grace, present ^ mercy 
and truth meeting together, righteousness and peace 
kissing each other.' 

V. We argue the doctrine of hereditary depravity 
from the express testimony of sacred writ. 

It is probable, though great stress need not be laid 
upon it, that when it is said. Gen. v. 3, that ' Adam 
begat a son in his own likeness,' that there is an implied 
opposition between the likeness of God, in which Adam 
was made, and the likeness of Adam, in which his son 
was beo-otten. It is not said that he beo-at a son in the 
likeness of God ; a very appropriate expression, if 
Adam had not fallen, and if human nature had sus- 
tained, in consequence, no injury ; and such a decla- 
ration was apparently called for, had this been the case, 
to show xAidX would have been a very important fact, 
that notwithstanding the personal delinquency of Ad- 
am, yet human nature itself had sustained no deteriora- 
tion, but was propagated v/ithout corruption. On the 
contrary, it is said that he begat a son in his own like- 
ness ; v/hich, probably, was mentioned on purpose to 
exclude the idea, that the image of God was heredita- 
ry in man. 

"In Gen. vi. 5, it is stated, as the cause of the flood, 
that ' God saw that the wickedness of man was great 
in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts 



PALL OF MAN. 



213 



of his heart was only evil continually.' Here, it is true., 
that the actual moral state of the antediluvians may 
only be spoken of, and that the text does not directly 
prove the doctrine of hereditary depravity : yet is the 
actual wickedness of man traced up to the heart, as its 
natural source, in a manner which seems to intimate 
that the doctrine of the natural corruption of man was 
held by the writer, and by that his mode of expression 
w^as influenced. The heart of man is here put for his 
soul. This God had formed with a marvellous think- 
ing power. But so is his soul debased, that every im- 
agination, figment, formation of the thoughts of it, is 
evil, only evil, continually evil. Whatever it forms 
within itself as a thinking power, is an evil formation. 
Therefore all men's actual vvickedness springs from the 
evil formation of their corrupt heart, consequently, they 
are sinners from bhth, or naturally depraved. 

That this was the theological sentiment held and 
taught by Moses, and implied even in this passage, is 
made very clear by Gen. viii. 21 : 'I will not again 
curse the ground any more for man's sake : for the im- 
agination of man's heart is evil from his youth ; neither 
will I again smite any more every living thing.' The 
sense of which plainly is, that, notwithstanding tho 
wickedness of mankind, though they sin from their 
childhood, yet would he not, on that account, again 
destroy ' every living thing.' Here it is to be observed. 

1. That the words were spoken as soon as Noah came 
forth from the ark, and, therefore, after the antediluvian 
race of actual and flagrant transgressors had perished^ 
and before the family of Noah had begun to multiply 
upon the earth ; when, in fact, there were no human 
beings upon earth but righteous Noah and his family. 

2. That they are spoken of ' man ' as man ; that is, of 
human nature, and, consequently, of Noah himself and 
the persons saved with him in the ark. 3. That it is 
affirmed of man, that is, of mankind, that the imagina- 
tion of the heart ' is evil from his youth.' Now the 



214 



FALL OF MAN. 



term ^ imagination ' includes the thoughts, affections^ 
and inchnations ; and the word ' youth ' the whole time 
from the birth, the earliest age of man. This passage, 
therefore, affirms the natural and hereditary tendency 
of man to evil. 

" The book of Job, which embodies the patriarchal 
theology, gives ample testimony to this as the faith of 
those ancient times. Job xi. 12: ^ Vain man would 
be wise, though man be born like a wild ass' colt 
fierce, untractable, and scarcely to be subjected. This 
is the case from his birth ; it is affirmed of man, and is 
equally applicable to every age ; it is his natural condi- 
tion, he is ' horrtj literally, ^the colt of a wild ass.^ 

' Man is born unto trouble as the sparks fly upward,' 
Job V. 7 ; that is, he is inevitably subjected to trouble ; 
this is the law of his state in this world, as fixed and 
certain as one of the laws of nature. The proof from 
this passage is inferential, but very decisive. Unless 
man is born a sinner, it is not to be accounted for, that 
he should be born to trouble. Pain and death are the 
consequences only of sin, and absolutely innocent be- 
ings must be exempt from them. 

' Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean V 
Job xiv. 4. The word thing is supplied by our trans- 
lators, but person is evidently understood. Cleanness 
.and uncleanness, in the language of Scripture, signify 
holiness and sin ; and the text clearly asserts the natur- 
al impossibility of any man being born sinless, because 
he is produced by guilty and defiled parents. 

What is man, that he should be clean ; and he 
which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous ?' 
Job XV. 14. The same doctrine is here affirmed as in 
the preceding text, only more fully, and it may be taken 
as an explanation of the former, which was, perhaps, a 
proverbial expression. The rendering of the LXX is 
here worthy of notice, for, though it does not agree 
with the present Hebrew text, it strongly marks the 
sentiments of the ancient Jews on the point in question* 



FALL OF MAN. 



215 



^ Who shall be clean from filth ? Not one ; even though 
his life on earth he a single day,^ 

Ps. li. 5 : ^ Behold^ I was shapen in iniquity, and in 
sin did my mother conceive me.' What possible sense 
can be given to this passage on the hypothesis of man's 
natural innocence ? It is in vain to render the first 
clause ^ I was brought forth in iniquity ;' for nothing is 
gained by it. David charges nothing upon his mother;, 
of whom he is not speaking, but of himself: he was 
conceived, or, if it please better, was born a sinner. 
And if the rendering of the latter clause were allowed, 
which yet has no authority, ^ in sin did my mother nurse 
me ;' still no progress is made in getting quit of its tes- 
timony to the moral corruption of children, for it is the 
child only which is nursed, and, if that be allowed, 
natural depravity is allowed, depravity before reasona- 
ble choice, which is the point in question. 

Ps. Iviii. 3, 4 : ' The wicked are estranged from the 
womb, they go astray as soon as they are born, speaking 
lies.' They are alienated from the womb, ' alienated 
from the life of God, from the time of their coming into 
the world.' ' Speaking lies :' they show a tendency to 
speak lies as soon as they are capable of it, which 
shows the existence of a natural principle of falsehood. 

^' Prov. xxii. 15, and xxix. 15 : ^ Foolishness is bound 
up in the heart of a child ; but the rod of correction 
shall drive it far from him.' ^ The rod and reproof give 
wisdom, but a child left to himself bringeth his mother 
to shame.' ^ These passages put together are a plain 
testimony of the inbred corruption of young childxen. 
Foolishness in the former is not barely appetite or a 
want of the knowledge attainable by instruction, as 
some have said. Neitheir of these deserve that sharp 
correction recommended. But it is indisposedness to 
what is good, and a strong propensity to evil. This 
foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child ; it is 
rooted in his inmost nature. It is, as it were, fastened 
' to hun by strong cords ] so the original word signifies. 



216 



FALL OF MAN. 



From this corruption of the heart in every child, it is 
that the rod of correction is necessary to give him wis- 
dom ; hence it is that a child left to himself, without cor- 
rection, brings his mother to shame. If a child were 
born equally inclined to virtue and vice, wdiy should 
the wise man speak of foolishness or wickedness as 
fastened so closely to his heart ? And why should the 
rod and reproof be so necessary for him ? These texts, 
therefore, are another clear proof of the corruption of 
human nature.' 

The quotation of Psalm xiv. 2, 3, by the Apostle 
Paul, in Romans iii. 10, fcc, is also an important Scrip- 
tural proof of the universal moral corruption of man- 
kind. ^ The Lord looked down from heaven upoh the 
children of men, to see if there were any that did un- 
derstand, and seek God. They are all gone aside, 
they are altogether become filthy ; there is none that 
doeth good, no, not one.' When the Psalmist afSrm.s 
this of the children of men, it is fair to conclude that 
he is speaking of all men, and of human nature as 
originating actual depravity ; and it is, indeed, obvious, 
from the context, that he is thus accountino; for atheism 
and other evils, the prevalence of which he laments. 
But as the Apostle quotes this passage and the parallel 
one in the 53d Psalm as Scriptural proofs of the uni- 
versal coiTuption of mankind, the sense of the Psalmist 
is fixed by his authority, and cannot be questioned. All, 
indeed, that the opponents of this interpretation can say, 
is, that, in the same psalm the Psalmist speaks also of 
righteous persons, ' God is in the generation of the 
righteous :' but that is nothing to the purpose, seeing 
that those who contend for the universal corruption of 
mankind allow also that a remedy has been provided 
for the evil ; and that by its application some, in every 
age, have been made righteous, who were originally and 
naturally sinful. In fact, it could not be said, with res- 
pect to men's actual moral conduct in that, or, probably^ 
in any age, that ^ not one ' was righteous but in every 



FALL OF MAN. 



217 



age it may be said, that not one is so originally, or by- 
nature ; so that the passage is not to be explained on 
the assumption that the inspked writer is speaking only 
of the practice of mankind in his own times. 

^^Of the same kind are all those passages which 
speak of what is morally evil as the characteristic and 
distinguishing mark, not of any individual, not of any 
particular people, living in some one age or part of the 
world, but of man, of human nature, and especially 
those which make sinfulness the natural state of that 
part of the human race who have not undergone that 
moral renovation which is the fruit of a Divine opera- 
tion in the heart, a work ascribed particularly to the 
Holy Spirit. Of these texts the number is very great, 
and it adds also to the strength of their evidence, that 
the subject is often mentioned incidentally, and by way 
of illustration and argument in support of something 
else, and must, therefore, be taken to be an acknow- 
ledged and settled opinion among the sacred writers, 
both of the Old and IVew Testament, and one which 
neither they nor those to whom they spoke or wrote 
questioned or disputed. 

^ Cursed,' says the Prophet Jeremiah, ^ is he that 
trusteth in 3ia>7.' Why in man if he Avere not, by na- 
ture, unvrorthy of trust ? On the scheme of man's 
natural innocence, it would surely have been more ap- 
propriate to say, Cursed be he that trusteth indiscrimi- 
nately in men, some of whom may have become cor- 
rupt ; but here human nature itself, man. in the abstract, 
is held up to suspicion and caution. ^ The heart,' pro- 
ceeds the same Prophet, Ms deceitful above all things, 
and desperately wicked, vdio can know it ?' vs hich is 
the reason adduced for the caution preceding against 
trusting in man. It is precisely in the same way that 
our Lord designates human nature, when he affirms, 
that ' from within, out of the heart, proceed evil 
thoughts, adulteries, murders, &c. ; all these things 
come from within, and defile the man.' This represen- 
19 



218 



FALL OF MAN. 



tation would not be true on the scheme of natural inno- 
cence. All these things would come from without, not 
from within, as their original source. The heart must 
first be corrupted by outward circumstances, before it 
could be the corrupter. 

But to proceed with instances of the more inciden- 
tal references to the fault and disease of man's very na- 
ture, with which the Scriptures abound. • How much 
more abominable and filthy is man. who drinketh iniqui- 
ty like water Job xv. 16. ^ Gladness is in the heart of 
the sons of men while they live,* Eccles. ix. 3. • But 
they like men have transgressed the covenant.' Hos. vi. 
7. 'If ye, being evil, know how to give good gifts 
unto your children,' ]\Iatt. vi. 11. ''Thou savourest 
not the things that be of God ; but the things that be 
of 3IEX.' Matt. xvi. -23. 'Are ye not carnal, and walk 
as MEX ?' 1 Cor. iii. 3. ' That he no longer should live 
the rest of his time in the lusts of men ; but to the will 
of God,' 1 Pet. iv. -2. • We are of God. and the 
whole icorlel lieth in wickedness,' 1 John v. 19. • Ex- 
cept a man he born agenn, he cannot see the kingdom 
of God,* John iii. S. • That ye put off the oleJ man. 
and be renewed in the spirit of your mind : and that ye 
put on the new man,* Eph. iv. 23 — 24. 

•'•'The above texts are to be considered as specimens 
of the manner in A^ hich the sacred writers speak of the 
subject rather than as approaching to an enumeration of 
the passages in which the same sentiments are found in 
great variety of expression, and which are adduced on 
various occasions. They are. however, sufScient to 
show that man and the heart of man. and the moral na- 
ture of man. are spoken of by them in a way not to be 
reconciled to the notion of their purity, or even their 
indifference to good and evil. On two parts of the New 
Testament, however, which irresistibly fix the \^diole of 
this evidence in favor of the opinion of the universal 
Church of Christ, in all ages, our remarks may be some- 
what more extended. The first is our Lord's discourse 



FALL OF 31 AN. 219 

with Nicodemus. John ill., m which he declares the 
necessity of a new birth, in contradistinction to our 
natural birth, in order to our entrance into the kingdom 
of God: and lays it down, that the Sphit of God is 
the sole author of this change, and that what is born of 
the flesh cannot alter its nature : it is flesh stih, and 
must always remain so. and in that state is unfit for 
heaven. -Except a man be born of water and of the 
Spirit, he cannot 'enter the kingdom of God : that 
which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is 
born of the Spirh is spirit.' Throughout the Xew Tes- 
tament; it will be found, that when flesh and spirit are, 
in a moral sense, opposed to each other, the one means 
the corrupt nature and habits of men. not sanctified by 
the gospel : the other, either the principle and habit of 
holiness in good men. or the Holy Spirit himself, who 
imparts and constantly nurtures them. ' I know that in 
me (that is. in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing.' Rom. 
yii. 18. ' I myself with the mind serve the law of 
God ; but with the Jlesh. the law of sin/* Rom. vii. 25* 
^ There is. therefore, uovn^ no condemnation to them 
which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh. 
but after the Spirh.' Rom. vih. 1. ^ They that are af- 
ter the flesh do mind the things of the flesh : but they 
that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For 
to be caniaUy 'minded is death : but to be spiritually 
minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is 
enmity against God ; for it is not subject to the law of 
God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in 
the flesh cannot please God. But ye are not in the flesh, 
but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell 
in you.' Rom. vih. 5 — 9. 

''These passages from St. Paul serve to fix the 
meaning of the terms flesh and spirit, as used by the 
Jews, and as they occur in the discourse of our Lord 
with Nicodemus : and thev are so exactly parallel to 
it, that they fully confirm the opinion of those who un- 
derstand our Lord as expressly asserting that man is by 



220 FALL OF MAN. 

nature corrupt and sinful^ and unfits in consequence, for 
the kingdom of heaven : and that all amendment of his 
case must result, not from himself, so totally is he gone 
from original righteousnesSj but from that special opera- 
tion of the Holy Spirit which produces a new birth or 
regeneration. Both assert the natural state of man to 
be fleshly, that is, morally corrupt ; both assert that in 
man himself there is no remedy ; and both attribute 
principles of holiness to a supernatural agency, the 
agency of the Spirit of God himself 

No criticism can make this lano;uao:e consistent with 
the theory of natural innocence. St. Paul describes 
the state of man, before he comes under the quickening 
and renewing influence of the Spirit, as being ^ in the 
flesh in which state ' he cannot please God as hav- 
ing a ' carnal mind,' which ^ is not, and cannot be, sub- 
ject to the law of God.' Our Lord, in like manner, 
describes this state of ^ the flesh,' this condition of entire 
unfitness for the kingdom of heaven as our natural 
state ; and, to make this the stronger, he refers this un- 
fitness for heaven, not to our acquired habits, but to the 
state in which we are born : for the very reason which 
he gives for the necessity of a new birth is, that ^ that 
w^hich is horn of the flesh is flesh,' and, therefore, we 
^must be horn again.^ To interpret, therefore, the 
phrase, ' to be flesh, as being born of the flesh,' merely 
to signify that we are, by natural birth, endovved with 
the physical powers of human nature, is utterly absurd ; 
for what, then, is to be born of the Spirit ? Is it to 
receive physical powers which do not belong to human 
nature ? Or, if they go a step further, and admit, that 
^to be flesh, or being born of the flesh,' means to be frail 
and mortal like our parents ; still the interpretation is a 
physical and not a moral one, and leads to this absurdi- 
ty, that we must interpret the being born of the Spirit 
physically, and not morally, likewise. Now, since the 
being born of the Spirit refers to a change which is 
effected in time, and not at the resurrection, because our 



FALL OF MAN 



221 



Lord speaks of being ' bom of water ' as well as the 
Spirit, by which he means baptism ; andj as St. Paul 
says to the Romans, in the passage above quoted, ^ ye 
are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit and, therefore, 
speaks of their present experience in this world, it may 
be asked, what physical change did in reality take place 
in them in consequence of being ' born of the Spirit V 
On all hands it is allowed, that none took place ; that 
they remained ' frail and mortal ' still ; and it follows, 
therefore, that it is a moral and not a physical change 
which is spoken of, both by our Lord and by the Apos- 
tle ; and, if a moral change from sin to holiness, then is 
the natural state of man from his birth, and in conse- 
quence of his birth, sinful and corrupt. 

The other passage is the argument in the third chap- 
ter of the Epistle to the Romans, in which the Apostle 
"^proves both Jews and Gentiles under sin, that every 
mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become 
guilty before God and then proposes the means of 
salvation by faith in Christ, on the express ground that 
^ all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.' 
Whoever reads that argument, and considers the uni- 
versality of the terms used, all, every, all the 
WORLD, BOTH Jews AND Gentiles, must concludc, in 
all fairness of interpretation, that the whole human race, 
of every age, is intended. But, if any will construe 
his words partially, then he is placed in the following 
dilemma : — The Apostle grounds the wisdom and mer- 
cy of that provision which is made for man's salvation 
in the gospel upon man's sinfulness, danger, and help- 
lessness. Now the gospel as a remedy for disease, as 
salvation from danD;er, is designed for all men. or but for 
a part ; if for all, then all are diseased and in danger ; 
if but for a part, then the undiseased part of the human 
race, those who are in no danger, have no interest in 
the gospel ; it is not adapted to their case ; and not only 
is the argument of the Apostle lost, but those who ad- 
vocate this notion must explain how it is that our Lord 
19* 



222 



FALL OF MAN. 



himself conltiianded the gospel to be preached - to every 
creature,^ if but a part of mankind needs its salvation^ 
— Watson, 

^•'The doctrine, then, of Scripture is, I think, clear- 
ly established to be, that of the natural and universal 
corruption of man's nature but before we dismiss this 
subject we shall endeavor to answer some of the objec- 
tions urged against the doctrine of hereditary depravity. 

1. It is said to be impossible for man to be born in 
sin, for sin is the abuse of one's powers. 

To this we answer : — The Scriptures uniformly as- 
sert, that man is ' shapen in iniquity,' and • conceived 
in sin ;' that • man cannot be clean who is born of a 
woman and that • that which is born of the flesh is 
flesh,' and needs to ' be born of the Spirit ' before it 
can enter the kingdom of heaven. To contradict this 
statement is, therefore, to contradict the plainest asser- 
tions of Scripture. 

This objection makes no distinction between a 
wrong choice and a wrong disposition ; between the 
wrong state and the wrong use of our po\\'ers. That 
man cannot be born with any thing which implies a 
wrong choice ah^eady made is obvious. Perhaps it 
will be granted that we have no innate ideas, and. there- 
fore, as principles are compounded of ideas, that we 
have no innate moral principles. But may there not 
be a disorder of the faculties before those faculties are 
called into action : We easily grant the possibihty of 
the birth of a human body disordered in any of its 
senses or members, or in all of them. A human body 
may be born blind, or deaf, or dumb, or maimed, or 
lame. Again : A man may be born with a false taste, 
which exists before either food or poison has been pre- 
sented to him ; and, therefore, before his taste has been 
\dtiated by the use of poison. ?*i~ow, where is the im- 
possibility of the mental powers being produced in dis- 
order ? Why must they of necessity be in proper order 
and harmony : Why is it impossible that the under- 



FALL OF MAN. 



223 



standing should be naturally blind, and the passions 
headstrong ? What reason is to be assigned in proof 
that the taste (shall we call it) cannot be naturally 
false, and give a wrong bias to the subsequent choice ?" 
— Hare. 

2. It is objected that this doctrine of hereditary de- 
pravity makes God the author of sin ; for it is said that 
the proper production of the child is from God ; and if 
God produce a child which has sinful dispositions, he 
must produce those dispositions. 

This argument proves too much. It would prove 
God to be the author of all actual, as well as original 
(or hereditary) sin. For it is the power of God, under 
certain laws and established rules, which produces not 
only the foetus, but all the motion in the universe. It 
is his power which so violently expands the air on the 
discharge of a pistol or cannon. It is the same which 
produces muscular motion, and the circulation of all the 
juices in man. But does he therefore produce adultery, 
or murder ? Is he the cause of those sinful motions ? 
He is the cause of the motion, (as he is of the fcetus,) 
of the sin he is not. Do not say this is too tine a dis- 
tinction. Fine as it is, you must necessarily allow it. 
Otherwise you make God the direct author of all the 
sin under heaven. To apply this more directly to the 
point. God do3s produce ihefatus of man as he does 
of trees, empowering the one and the other to propa- 
gate each after its kind. And a sinful man propagateS;, 
after his kind, another sinful man. 1 et God produces, 
in the sense above mentioned, the man, hut not the 
sin." — J. Wesley on Original Sin.) 

3. This doctrine is said to apologise for the actual 
wretchedness of mankind ; for if men are naturally dis- 
posed to sin, they cannot be justly blamed for sinnino;. 

" That the natural depravity of the human soul is 
unavoidable, we grant : but not that the personal 
wickedness of every man is unavoidable. Nothing but 
universal depravity can account for universal wicked- 



224 



FALL OF MAN. 



ness ; and universal wickedness would be the necessary 
consequence of universal depravity, if there were no 
cure for it. But ^ the grace of God, which bringeth 
salvation, hath appeared unto all men, teaching them 
that denying (renouncing) ungodliness and worldly 
lusts, they should live soberly, and righteously, and god- 
ly, in this present world ; looking for that blessed hope, 
and the glorious appearing of our great God and Sa- 
viour, Jesus Christ ; who gave himself for us, that he 
might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto him- 
self a peculiar people, zealous of good works,' Titus ii. 
11 — 13. Under these circumstances, mankind are 
placed in a state of personal probation : with this differ- 
ence, however; Adam was created upright, and was 
proved whether he would fall ; we are born prone, and, 
under a remediate law, are proved whether we will rise. 
He sinned voluntarily against the law of innocence ; 
we sin voluntarily against the law of grace. He sinned 
and induced the disorder ; we sin partly by neglecting 
the remedy, and partly in consequence of that neglect. 
Our disease is unavoidable ; but not so our neglect of 
the cure." — Hare. 

4. It is objected that this doctrine renders it impossi- 
ble for those who die in infancy to be saved. But 
" there is nothing inconsistent between the ruin and de- 
pravity of infants by the sin of their parents, and their 
being finally saved by Jesus Christ. ' If by the offence 
of one, judgment came upon them to condemnation ; 
so, by the righteousness of one, the free gift comes upon 
them unto justification of life.' However necessary it 
may be that they who, by personal sin, have confirmed 
the original sentence of condemnation, should seek and 
accept a personal interest in Christ, it cannot be neces- 
sary for those who have committed no personal sin, and 
who have never been capable of a personal application 
of the merit of the Saviour. As to their participation 
of human depravity, they have never, by an unholy 
choice or deed, given themselves up to its government ; 



ATONEMENT. 



225 



and, therefore, dying in personal innocence, they may 
be renewed by an operation of the Holy Spirit, which 
does not require, as in the case of adults, their personal 
co-operation. Their ruin has been effected without 
their personal fault ; and their recovery is effected with- 
out their personal choice. 

As the depravity and ruin of mankind are clearly 
and decisively demonstrated, in the sacred Scriptures, 
to be the natural and judicial conse-quences of the sin 
of their first parents, the whole Unitarian system must 
fall to the ground. The rational divines must relinquish 
their confidence in the infallibility of human reason ; 
gi'ant that a Divine Redeemer and Restorer is neces- 
sary ; submit to the doctrine of a propitiatory sacrifice ; 
and acknowledge their want of a supernatural influence 
on then' minds and hearts, in order to their salvation. 
They must renounce their boasts of the moral dignity 
of human nature ; rank themselves with publicans and 
sinners ; and condescend to be saved by grace. Nor 
will they hereby lose any thing but their unreasonable 
prejudices and their destructive sins." — Hare, 



CHAPTER VHI. 

THE ATONEMENT 3IADE BY CHRIST. 

Having shov/n in the last chapter that man is a sin- 
ner by nature as well as by practice, or, in other words, 
that he is a guilty rebel in the sight of a holy God, we 
shall now endeavor to establish the doctrine of a vicari- 
ous atonement, or, that Jesus Christ has suffered in our 
stead, being made a curse for us, that we might escape 
the curse of the violated yet inflexible law of God. 
This is a doctrine which is denied by all classes of Uni- 
tarians, as may be seen by turning to the quotation made 
from Mr. Yates, on page 16, where, after enumerating 



226 



ATONEMENT, 



the points on which Unitarians differ, he definitely 
states that all Unitarians agree "in rejecting the doc- 
trine of satisfaction and vicarious atonement." Mr. 
Grundy says : " This doctrine converts justice into ven- 
geance. It first plunges its sword into the soul of the 
innocent ; it afterward pursues multitudes of those 
w^hose punishment he bore, and relentlessly plunges 
them into the flames of hell, because they cannot satis- 
fy its demands, which were all satisfied by his suffering 
in their stead." The same sentiment is held, and the 
same language used, in substance, by those Unitarians 
who call themselves Christians, some of whom have 
exclaim.ed, "What! wash in the blood of Christ? It 
would render your garment filthy. It was rotten 
eighteen hundred years ago !" And one of their preach- 
ers (the Rev. lSh\ Sanford,) told the writer, in refer- 
ence to this work, that he need have no fears in setting 
it down as the faith of their Church, that they denied 
the doctrine of Vicarious Atonement. This doctrine* 
then, being generally denied by our opponents, we shall 
BOW endeavor to establish its truth, which we might 
forcibly argue from the necessity of there being such a 
provision made for the redemption of man, without 
wdiich salvation could never have been offered to a lost 
and ruined world ; but having extended our remarks on 
other subjects, beyond our intended limits, we must 
necessarily be more brief upon this important subject 
than we otherwise should be. We shall, therefore, ap- 
peal directly to the express testimony of scripture, at 
the same time requesting the reader, who would see a 
more extensive investigation of the subject, to refer to 
an excellent work recently published by the Rev. 
Luther Lee, entitled " L^niversalism Examined," in 
which this subject is more largely discussed, and from 
which some of the followino; aro-uments are extracted. 
But to proceed — 

1. We argue this doctrine from the fact that the 
" scriptures teach, directly, that the sufferings and death 



ATONEMENT. 



227 



of Jesus Christ, were in the place of the punishment 
which was due to sinners ; he suffering in their steady 
bearing the punishment which they otherwise must have 
borne, and from which they, consequently, may now 
be dehvered on gospel terms. By this, however, we 
do not mean that Christ suffered the same in kind and 
degree that sinners would have suffered, but simply that 
what he suffered was a substitute for what they must 
have suffered without the atonement. Isa. liii. 5, 6, 8, 
11, 12. ^ He was wounded for our transgressions, he 
was bruised for our iniquities, the chastisement of our 
peace was upon him, and with his stripes we are healed. 
The Lord hath laid upon him the iniquity of us all ; for 
the transgression of my people was he stricken. He 
shall bear their iniquities, and he bore the sin of many 
and made intercession for the transgressors.' 

''That this whole chapter relates to Jesus Christ 
there is no doubt, and if it does not teach that he suf- 
fered for sinners, bearing a punishment for their sins, it 
is because the sentiment cannot be couched in the Eng- 
lish language. Why was he wounded for our trans- 
gressions and bruised for our iniquities, if it vras not to 
save us from being thus Vv^ounded and bruised ? It is 
worthy of remark, that in this interesting chapter, 
Christ is represented as suffering for us by divine ap- 
pointment, and under the divine sanction : ' the Lord 
hath laid on him the iniquity of us all ' — ' when thou 
shalt make his soul an offering for sin.' Now, if It w^as 
not the divine purpose to save us from the punishment 
our sins deserve by laying our iniquities on Jesus Christ, 
and making his soul an offering for sin ; if after all this, 
we must inevitably suffer all that our sins deserve, then 
what Christ suffered for us must have been over and 
above what justice requires, and, consequently, unjust 
and cruel." — Lee, 

In addition to this, we would remark, that if the 
chastisement of our peace was upon the Saviour, he 
must have suffered in our stead for, as Mr. Watson 



228 



ATONEMENT. 



very justly remarks, chastisement is the punishment 
of a fault ; but the suffering person, of whom the Pro- 
phet speaks, is declared by him to be wholly free from 
transgression; to be perfectly and emphatically inno- 
cent. This prophecy is applied to Christ by the Apos- 
tles, whose constant doctrine is the entire immaculate- 
ness of their Master and Lord. If chastisement, 
therefore, was laid upon Christ, it could not be on ac- 
count of faults of his own ; his sufferings were the 
chastisement of our faults, the price of our peace, and 
his ^ stripes ' were borne by him for our ' healing.' 
Again, our iniquities, that is, according to the Flebrew 
mode of speaking, their punishment, are made to meet 
upon him ; they are fixed together and laid upon him ; 
the penalty is exacted from him, though he himself had 
incurred no penalty personally, and, therefore, it was 
in consequence of that vicarious exaction that he was 
^ afHicted,' was ^ made answerable,' and, voluntarily sub- 
mitting, ' he opened not his mouth." — ''These pas- 
sages, therefore, prove a suhstituiion, a suffering in our 
stead. The chastisement of offences was laid upon 
him, in order to our peace ; and the offences were ours, 
since they could not be his ' who did no sin, neither 
was guile found in his mouth.' ''^—Watson, 

'' But we recollect of having seen an attem.pt made 
by" Unitarians "to evade the forcq of the above quota- 
tions from the Prophet. It has been said that this pro- 
phecy was fulfilled in the miracles which Christ wrought 
for the relief of the afflicted ; in proof of which they 
quote Matt. viii. 16, 17 : 'He healed all that were sick, 
that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the 
prophet saying, himself took our infirmities and bare 
our sicknesses.' That this is a quotation from the same 
chapter, we admit, but it is not a quotation from any 
portion which we have quoted, or on which we rely as 
proof of the point in question, but is borrowed from the 
fourth verse, which reads thus : ' Surely he hath borne 
our griefs and carried our sorrows.' These are the 



ATONEMENT. 



229 



words which the Evangelist appUes to Christ's healing 
the sick^ which can furnish no ground for making the 
same application of the whole chapter, some of which 
most clearly refers to his death and not to the works of 
benevolence which he performed during his ministry. 
There is a vast difference between his bearing our grief 
and carrying our sorrows, or as the Evangelist renders 
it, ' taking our infirmities and bearing our sicknesses, 
and being wounded for our transgressions,' and ^ bruised 
for our iniquities ;' or being ' numbered with the trans- 
gressors,' and bearing ' the sin of many.' But this 
question is settled by the fact that two other Evangelists 
quote from the same subject and apply it to his cruci- 
fixion. Mark xv. 27, 28 : ^And with him they crucify 
two thieves ; the one on his right hand, and the other 
on his left ; and the Scripture was fulfilled which saith, 
and he was numbered with the transgressors.' This is 
a quotation from the 12th, which reads thus : ' He hath 
poured out his soul unto death, and he was numbered 
with the transgressors, and he bare the sin of many.' 
Luke xxxii. 37 : ^And he was reckoned among the 
transgressors.' It is clear, then, that the Prophet de- 
scribes the death, as well as the life of our blessed 
Lord, and forcibly points it out as a sacrifice for sin. 

" In the above position we are, if possible, more 
amply sustained by the Apostles in the New Testament, 
who express the same sentiment, in nearly the same 
language, evidently borrowing their descriptions from 
the above paintings of the prophetic pencil. 

1 Cor. XV. 3 : ' For I delivered unto you first of 
all, that which I also received, how that Christ died for 
our sins according to the Scriptures.' Several points in 
this text deserve notice. 

L '^The substance of the Apostle's declaration is, 
' Christ died for our sins.' 

2. This doctrine of the vicarious death of Christy 
he declares he received : ' I delivered unto you that 
which I also received.' It was not a thought of his 
20 



230 



ATONEMENT. 



own, nor the invention of man, but he received it from 
God, who called him to preach Christ crucified. 

3. This doctrine of Christ's death for our sins, he 
says, he ' delivered unto them first of all,' showing that 
he considered the doctrine of Christ's vicarious death 
one of the first principles of the gospel, of the first im- 
portance, on which the sinner's hope rests, and upon 
which the whole gospel fabric is reared. 

4. This doctrine of Christ's death for our sins, be 
declares, is ^ according to the Scriptures.' 

Let it be understood that by the Scriptures here, 
the Old Testament only can be intended, and what we 
have said on this subject, reasoning from the law and 
the Prophets, is confirmed. As the Apostle declares 
tlrat Christ's death for our sins was according to the 
Scriptures of the Old Testament, it follows that the sin 
offerings made under the law were representations of 
his death, and pointed him out as suffering for sinners ; 
and that the Prophet, in foretelhng his passion, referred 
to the same object of his death, saying, ' When thou 
shalt make his soul an offering for sin he shall see his 
seed,' fee. 

1 Pet. ii. 24, 25 : ' Who his ownself bare our sins, 
in his own body on the tree, by whose stripes ye are 
healed ; for ye were as sheep going astray.' This is 
almost a literal quotation from the Prophet, whose 
words we have already considered, and goes farther to 
show that we are sustained by the New Testament wri- 
ters, in our application of the Prophet's language to the 
death of Christ, as a sacrifice for sin. The Apostle 
here is so plain and precise that it seems hardly possible 
to misunderstand or misapply his language. 

1. He states that Christ bore our sins. 

2. To show, beyond all dispute, that he bore them 
literally, and not in some symbolical or allegorical man- 
ner, he notes the manner in which he bore them, in 
three particulars : First, he bore them ^ his own self/ 



% - 



ATONEMENT. 



231 



Secondly, he bore them ^ in his own body.' Thirdly, 
he bore them ' on the tree/ i. e., on the cross. 

3. " Lest some skeptic should still question the mer- 
itorious character of Christ's sufferings the Apostle adds 
' by his stripes ye are healed.' 

" Rom. iv. 25 : ' Who was delivered for our offen- 
ces and raised again for our justification.' Here the 
Apostle clearly asserts Christ's death for sinners, and 
their deliverance or salvation from the guilt of sin by 
his resurrection ; i. e., he died to atone for our sins, and 
rose again to intercede for us, by pleading the merits of 
his death ; we, therefore, may be justified, i. e., saved 
from the guilt and consequently the punishment of sin, 
through his resurrection. 

" 2 Cor. V. 21 : ' For he hath made him to be sin 
for us w'ho knew no sin, that we might be made the 
rio;hteousness of God in him.' On this text it mav be 
remarked, 

1. By Christ's being made sin for us, we are to un- 
derstand that he was made a sin offering for us, or an 
offering for our sin. 

2. The desio^n of this was that we mio-ht be made 
the righteousness of God in him, by which we under- 
stand, being made the partakers of God's justifying and 
renewing grace, whereby we are rendered righteous. 
This is termed the righteousness of God, because the 
pardon of sin on the ground of the sin offering of Christ, 
whereby w^e are justified from sins that are past, is the 
prerogative and act of God, and because the internal 
work of renewing the heart and sanctifying the soul, 
whereby we are rendered righteous in heart and life, is 
the work of God's Holy Spirit." — Lee, 

The Socinian Improved Version has a note on this 
passage so obscure that the point is evidently given up 
in despair. Socinus before had attempted an elusive 
interpretation, which requires scarcely an effort to refute. 
By Christ's being made ' sin,' he would understand be- 
ing esteemed a sinner by men. But, as Grotius ob* 



232 



ATONEMENT. 



serves, neither is the Greek word, translated sim, nor the 
Hebrew word answering to it, ever taken in such a sense^ 
BesideS; the Apostle has attributed this act to God ; it 
was he who made him to be sin ; but he certainly did 
not cause the Jews and others to esteem Christ a wicked 
man. On the contrary, by a voice from heaven, and by 
miracles, he did all that was proper to prove to all men 
his innocence. Farther, St. Paul places ' sin ' and 
' righteousness ' in opposition to each other — ^ we are 
made the righteousness of Gca),' that is, are justified 
and freed from Divine punishment ; but in order to this^ 
Christ was ' made sin,' or bore our punishment. There 
is also another antithesis in the Apostle's words — God 
made him who knew no sin, and consequently deserved 
no punishment, to be sin ; that is, it pleased him that 
he should be punished ; but Christ was innocent, not 
only according to human laws, but according to the law 
of God ; the antithesis, therefore, requires us to under- 
stand that he bore the penalty of the law, and that he 
bore it in our stead." — Watson. 

" 1 Pet. iii. 18 : ^ For Christ also hath once suffered 
for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us 
to God, being put to death in the flesh but quickened 
by the Spirit.' 

1. ''This text declares that Christ suffered for sins. 

2. '' It was was not his own sins for which he suffer- 
ed, for he was without sin, but he suffered ' the just for 
the unjust,' his sufferings were, therefore, vicarious. 

3. '' The object of his sufferings was that he might 
bring us to God ; his sufferings, therefore,, must have 
been necessary in order to our salvation. 

4. "To show that the salvation of sinners depends 
upon the merits of Christ's death, and not upon the in- 
fluence of his example and truth, revealed in his gospel 
aside from his death, the Apostle refers the whole t# 
his passion : ' He suffered for sin, that he might bring 
us to God, being put to death in the fleshJ 

Heb.. ix* 28 : ' So Christ was once offered to beas 



Af oneMent. 



233 



the sins of many/ Chapter ii. 9 : ^ But we see Jesus, 
&LC., ' that he by the grace of God should taste death 
for every manJ This class of texts might be multiplied 
to almost any extent, but it is unnecessary to add, 
enough has been produced to show, beyond dispute, 
that Christ did suffer for sinners, and that he suffered 
and died by Divine appointment on the part of the 
Father, and as a free-will offering on his own part. 
The death of Christ, then, must have been an atone- 
ment for sinners, essential to their salvation, or it would 
never have been voluntarily endured by himself or sanc- 
tioned by the Father." — Lee. 

IL The death of Christ is expressly represented in 
the New Testament as penal, which it could not be in 
any other way than by his taking our place, and suffer 
ing in our stead. This is manifest from Gallatians iii. 
13 : ' Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the 
law, being made a curse [an execration] for us, for it is 
written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree/ 
The passage in Moses, to which Paul refers, is Deut. 
xxi. 22, 23 : ^ If a man have committed a sin worthy 
of death, and be put to death, and they hang him on a 
tree, his body shall not remain all night upon the tree, 
but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day, for he 
that is hanged is accursed of God, that thy land be not 
defiled.' This infamy was only inflicted upon great 
offenders, and v/as designed to show the light in which 
the person thus exposed was viewed by God — he was a 
curse or execration. On this the remarks of Grotius 
are most forcible and conclusive. — ^ Socinus says, that 
to be an execration means to be under the punishment 
of execration, which is true. For cursed every where 
denotes punishment proceeding from the sanction of 
law: 2 Pet. ii. 14 ; Mark xxv. 41. Socinus also ad- 
mits that the cross of Christ was this curse ; his cross, 
therefore, had the nature of punishment, which is what 
we maintain. Perhaps Socinus allows that the cross 
of Christ was a punishment, because Pilate, as a judge, 
20* 



234 



ATONEMENT* 



inflicted it ; but this does not come up to the intention 
of the Apostle ; for, in order to prove that Christ was 
made obnoxious to punishment, he cites Moses, who 
expressly asserts, that whoever hangs on a tree, accord- 
ing to the Divine law, is accursed of God, — conse- 
quently, in the words of the Apostle, who cites this 
place of Moses, and refers it to Christ, we must supply 
the same circumstance, accursed of God, as if it had 
said Christ was made accursed of God, or obnoxious to 
the highest and most ignominious punishment for us, that 
the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles, 
&LC. For when the Apostles speak of the sufferings of 
Christ in reference to our good, they do not regard the 
acts of men in them, but the act of God.' " 

III. This doctrine may also be argued from those 
passages of Holy Scripture which represent the death 
of Christ as a propitiation for our sins. For, to pro- 
pitiate is to appease, to atone, to turn away the wrath 
of an offended person. In the case before us, the 
wrath turned away is the wrath of God ; the person 
making the propitiation is Christ ; the propitiating offer- 
ing or sacrifice is his blood. All this is expressed in 
most explicit terms in the following passages : 1 John 
ii. 2 : ^And he is the propitiation for our sins.' 1 John 
iv. 10 : ' Herein is love, not that we loved God ; but 
that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation 
for our sins .' Rom. iii. 25 : ' Whom God hath set 
forth to be propitiation through faith in his hlood^ 

Unitarians have no way of evading the force of these 
passages, but by denying the existence of wrath in God. 
This they do in hopes of proving that propitiation, in 
a proper sense, cannot be the doctrine of Scripture, 
whatever may be the force of the terms which the sa- 
cred writers employ. In order to give plausibility to 
their statement, they pervert and caricature the opinion 
of the orthodox, and argue as though it formed a part 
of the doctrine of Christ's propitiation and oblation for 
sin, that God is naturally an implacable and vengeful 



ATONEMENT. 



235 



being, only made placable and disposed to show mercy 
by satisfaction being made to his displeasure through 
our Lord's sufferings and death. This is as contrary to 
Scripture as it is to the opinions of all sober persons 
who hold the doctrine of Christ's atonement. God is 
Love; but it is not necessary, in order to support this 
truth, to assume that he is nothing else. He has, as 
we have seen other attributes, which harmonize with 
this and with each other, though, assuredly, that harmo- 
ny cannot be exhibited by any who deny the propitia- 
tion for sin made by the death of Christ. Their sys- 
tem, therefore, obliges them to deny the existence of 
some of the attributes of God, or to explain them 
away. 

" It is sufficient to show that there is not only no im- 
placability in God, but a most tender and placable af- 
fection toward the sinning human race itself^ that the 
Son of God, by w^hom the propitiation was made, was 
the free gift of the Father to us. This is the most emi- 
nent proof of his love, that for our sakes, and that 
mercy might be extended to us, ' he spared not his own 
Son ; but delivered him up freely for us all.' Thus he 
is the fountain and first moving cause of that scheme 
of recovery and salvation which the incarnation and 
death of our Lord brought into full and efficient opera- 
tion. The question, indeed, is not vvhether God is love, 
or whether he is of a placable nature ; in that w^e are 
agreed ; but it is, whether God is holy and just ; 
whether we, his creatures, are under law or not ; whe- 
ther this law has any penalty, and whether God, in his 
rectoral character, is bound to execute and uphold that 
law." These are points which no one can deny ; 
and as the justice of God is punitive, (for if it is not 
punitive, his laws are a dead letter,) then is there wrath 
in God ; then is God a/zgry with the wicked ; then is 
man, as a sinner, obnoxious to this anger ; and so a 
propitiation becomes necessary to turn it away from him* 
Nor are these terms unscriptural ; they are used in the. 



236 



ATONEMENT. 



New Testament as emphatically as in the old, though 
in a special sense, a revelation of the mercy of God to 
man. John the Baptist declares, that, if any man be- 
iieveth not on the Son of God, ^ the wrath of God 
abideth upon him.' St. Paul declares, that ^ the wrath 
of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness 
and unrighteousness of men.' The day of judgment 
is, w\\h reference to the ungodly, said to be ' the day of 
wrath ;' God is called ' a consuming fire ;' and as such, 
is the object of ' reverence and godly fear.' Nor is this 
his displeasure light ; and the consequences of it a 
trifling and temporary inconvenience. When we only 
regard the consequences which have followed sin in 
society, from the earliest ages, and in every part of the 
world, and add to these the many direct and fearful in- 
flictions of punishment which have proceeded from the 
' Judo;e of the whole earth,' to use the lano;uao:e of 
Scripture, ^ our flesh may well tremble because of his 
judgments.' But when we look at the future state of 
the wicked, as it is represented in Scripture, though ex- 
pressed generally, and surrounded as it is with the mys- 
tery of a world, and a condition of being, unknown to 
us in the present state, all evils which history has crowd- 
ed into the lot of man, appear insignificant in compari- 
son to banishment from God — separation from the 
good — public condemnation — torment of spirit — ^veep- 
ing, wailing, and gnashing of teeth ' — ^ everlasting de- 
struction ' — ^ everlasting fire.' Let men talk ever so 
much, and eloquently, of the pure benevolence of God, 
they cannot abolish the facts recorded in the histoiy of 
human suffering in this world as the effect of transgres- 
sion ; nor can they discharge these fearful comminations 
from the pages of the Book of God. They cannot be 
criticised avvay ; and if it is ' Jesus who saved us from 
this wrath to come,' that is, from those effects of the 
vsTath of God which are to come, then, but for him, we 
should have been liable to them. That principle in 
God; from which such effects follow, the Scriptures call 



ATONEMENr.. 



231 



wrath ; and they who deny the existence of wrath in 
God, deny, therefore, the Scriptures. 

" It by no means follows, however, that those who 
thus bow to inspired authority, must interpret wrath to 
be a passion in God ; or that, though we conclude the 
awful attribute of his justice to require satisfaction, in 
order to the forgiveness of the guilty, we afford reason 
to any to charge us with attributing vengeful affections- 
to the Divine Being. ' Our adversaries,^ says Bishop 
Stillingfleet, ^ first make opinions for us, and then show 
that they are unreasonable. They first suppose that 
anger in God is to be considered as a passion, and that 
passion a desire of revenge, and then tell us, that if 
we do not prove that this desire of revenge can 
be satisfied by the sufferings of Christ, then we can 
never prove the doctrine of satisfaction to be true ; 
whereas we do not mean, by God's anger, any such 
passion, but the just declaration of God's will to punish, 
upon our provocation of him by our sins we do not 
make the design of the satisfaction to be that God may 
please himself in the revenging the sins of the guilty 
upon the most innocent person, because we make the^ 
design of punishment not to be the satisfaction of an- 
ger as a desire of revenge, but to be the vindication of 
the honor and rights of the offended person by such a 
way as he himself shall judge satisfactory to the ends 
of his government. 

IV. We now proceed with those passages of Scrip- 
ture, the phraseology of which still farther establishes 
the doctrine of Christ's vicarious atonement. To those,^ 
in which Christ is called a propitiation, we add those 
which speak of reconciliation and the establishment of 
peace between God and man as the design and direct 
effect of his death. So Col. i. 19, 22, ' For it pleased 
the Father that in him should all fulness dwell, and 
having made peace through the blood of his cross, by 
him to reconcile all things unto himself ; by him I say^ 



238 



ATONEMENT, 



whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven ; 
and you that were some time ahenated and enemies in 
your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled, 
in the body of his iElesh through death.' Romans v. 
10, 11, ^ For if when we were enemies, we were re- 
conciled to God, by the death of his Son, much more, 
being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. And 
not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord 
Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received atone- 
mentJ' 2 Cor. v. 18, 19, 'And all things are of God 
who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and 
hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation.' 

The expressions ' reconcihation ' and ' making 
peace ' necessarily suppose a previous state of hostility 
between God and man, which is reciprocal. This is 
sometimes called enmity, a term, as it respects God, 
rather unfortunate, since enmity is almost fixed in our 
language to signify a malignant and revengeful feeling. 
Of this, the oppugners of the doctrine of the atonement 
have availed themselves to argue, that as there can be 
no such affection in the Divine nature, therefore, recon- 
ciliation in Scripture does not mean the reconciliation of 
God to man, but of man to God, whose enmity the ex- 
ample and teaching of Christ they tell us are very ef- 
fectual to subdue. It is, indeed, a sad and humbling 
truth, and one which Unitarians, in their discussions on 
the natural innocence of man, are not willing to admits 
that by the infection of sin ' the carnal mind is enmity 
to God,' that human nature is malignantly hostile to 
God, and to the control of his law ; but this is far from 
expressing the whole of that relation of man, in which, 
in Scripture he is said to be at enmity with God, and 
so to need a reconciliation — the making of peace be- 
tween God and him. That relation is a legal one, as 
that of a sovereign in his judicial capacity, and a crimi- 
nal who has violated his laws, and risen up against his 
authority, and who is, therefore, an enemy. 



ATONEMENT. 



239 



" But that there is no truth in the notion that recon- 
cihation means no more than our laying aside our en- 
mity to God, may be shown from Romans, v. 10, ' For 
if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God.' 
Here the act of reconciling is ascribed to God and not 
to us ; but if this reconciliation consisted in the laying 
aside our own enmity, the act would be ours alone ; 
and, farther, that it could not be the laying aside of our 
enmity, is clear from the text, which speaks of recon- 
ciliation w^hile we were yet enemies. 

Here also a critical remark will be appropriate. 
The above passage will show how falsely it has been as- 
serted that God is no where, in Scripture, said to be 
reconciled to us, and that they only declare that we are 
reconciled to God ; but the fact is, that the very phrase 
of our being reconciled to God^ imports the turning 
away his wrath from us. When the Philistines sus- 
pected that David would appease the anger of Saul, by 
becoming their adversary, they said, wherewith should 
he reconcile himself to his master? Should it not be 
with the heads of these men ?' — not, surely, how shall 
he remove his own anger against his master ; but how 
shall he remove his master's anger against him ; how 
shall he restore himself to his master's favor ? ' If thou 
bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that 
thy brother hath aught against thee,^ not that thou hast 
aught against thy brother, ' first be reconciled to thy 
brother ;' that is, appease and conciliate him : so that 
the words, in fact, import ^ see that thy brother be recon- 
ciled to theCy^ since that which goes before is not that 
he hath done thee an injury, but thou him." — Watson. 

Again, the Apostle says, 1 Tim. ii. 5, 6, ^ There is 
one God and one Mediator between God and men, the 
man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for alV 
Christ then, as mediator, gave himself a ransom (anti- 
lutron, the price of redemption) for all. To whom 
was this ransom paid ? It was not paid to man, to pur- 
chase his favor and reconciliation to God, by the pay- 



240 



ATONEMENT* 



ment of a price ! The Apostle informs us to whom 
Christ gave himself a ransom, Heb. ix. 14, ' Who' 
(Christ) ' through the eternal spirit, offered himself 
without spot to God.' Christ, then, as mediator, offer- 
ed himself to God for man. The offering was made 
to God to render him propitious, and to procure, con- 
sistently with the principles of divine government, that 
gi'ace by which sinners are renewed, pardoned, and re- 
conciled to God. Heb. vii. 25. ^Wherefore he is able 
to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by 
him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.' 
Does Christ intercede with men, in the sense of this 
text, to reconcile them to God ? Or does he intercede 
with God fo7^ man, to render him propitious, that they 
may receive reconciling grace ? Let God, by the 
mouth of his Apostle, answer this question. Heb. ix. 
24. ' Christ is not entered into the holy place made 
with hands, which are the figures of the true, but into 
heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God 
for us.' It is clear, then, that Christ intercedes with 
God for us. Eph. v. 2. ' Christ hath loved us, and 
hath given himself for us an offering and sacrifice to 
God for a sweet smelling savour.' This not only fully 
refutes the notion held by" Unitarians, ^^that men only, 
and not God, are reconciled by Christ, but It establishes, 
beyond doubt, the fact that an atonement /or the sins 
of men has been made to God, the object of which is 
to render him propitious to his offending offspring, by 
enabling him to ^ be just and the justifier of him that 
believeth in Jesus.' If, as" Unitarians contend, God 
never was unreconciled to man but was always propi- 
tious, without reference to a vicarious atonement, man 
only being an unreconciled party, the offering and in- 
tercession of Christ should have been made to and with 
man ; for it would not be necessary for Christ to offer 
himself to God, and intercede with him in behalf of 
man if God was not unreconciled, man only being the 
subject of reconciliation through the mediation of Christ. 



ATONEMENT* 



241 



But in opposition to this absurd notion, the Scriptures 
uniformly represent Christ as offering himself to God 
for man. and as interceding with him in behalf of his 
rebellious offspring.'' — Lee, 

Another objection made by our opponents to the doc- 
trine of reconciliation or atonement, is, that it represents 
God as changing from that state of reconcihation in 
which he stood to man when he first brought him into 
being to a state of unreconciliation, from which, in 
consequence of the atonement made by Christ, this doc- 
trine, is said to represent him as changing back again 
to a state of reconciliation : and if all this be true, then 
God is no longer an immutable being. 

In answer to this we would say, that if God now 
stands in the same relation to man that he did when 
man was first created, and shone , in the divine image, 
then God must approve of all the conduct of man, con- 
sequently of all that black catalogue of crime and 
Iniquity which has marked the history of the human 
family, since the fall of the first pair down to the pre- 
sent time, therefore, as far as man is concerned, must 
stand opposed to punishment of every kind. For it 
would be absurd to -suppose that the Divine Being 
would punish men when he was perfectly reconciled to 
them, especially for deeds of which he approved : there- 
fore, all the judgments which he has poured upon 
nations and individuals, in consequence of their sins, 
are only so m.any instances of injustice and cruelty in 
the Deity. 

2. If God, independent of the atonement, now stands 
in the same reconciled relation as that in which he 
stood before the fall, then, as above remarked, he cer- 
tainly cannot punish him : consequently, the sufferings 
and death of Christ are not only unnecessary, but God 
must have been unjust and cruel in requiring his son 
thus to suffer and die while man was exposed to no 
danger, but perfectly safe and sure of heaven without 
his sufferings, death, mediation; or intercession. 
21 



242 



ATONEMENT. 



But the various judgments which God has poured 
upon those nations who have incurred his displeasure 
is sufficient to answer the above objection. The de- 
struction of the old world by water, and the cities of 
the plains by fire — the awful calamities with which he 
visited the Jewish people when they forsook his wor- 
ship — the curse under which the earth now groans — 
the judgment poured upon thousands of blasphemers,. 
Sabbath breakers^ and other heaven daring sinners in 
this life, as well as the wailings of the lost in the dun- 
geons of eternal night, all tell, in the most emphatic 
language, that God is not reconciled to sinners while 
out of Christ, and if God must change in order to be 
reconciled, then man may give up' all hope of ever 
gaining the favor of God. and retire in hopeless despak 
to the dismal shades of endless night, for God can never 
change. 

But it is not true that God cannot now be unrecon- 
ciled to man, although he was once reconciled. To 
show this, we will take an illustration. Suppose the 
government of the United States sends a man of war to 
cruise against pirates — I ask, is not the government re- 
conciled to her crew when she sends them out ? All 
must answer yes, or she would not have sent them. 
Suppose, still farther, that after some months this crew 
turn pirates, and themselves plunder every vessel which 
they meet, not sparing the property and lives of our 
own citizens. I now ask, is the government reconciled 
to these men now that they have deserted her service^ 
plundered her property, and murdered her citizens ? 
All will answer no, and justify the government in pur- 
suincr and destroving; these g:uiltv murderers. But has 
the o-overnment chancred? iNo. She is still the same 
government, pursuing the same onward course ; but she 
stands in a new relation to these supposed individuals, 
in other words, she was once reconciled but is now un- 
reconciled, while, at the same time, she has not changed, 
but remains the same. But if an earthly government 



ATONEMENT. 



243 



can be reconciled and then become unreconciled with- 
out changing, why may not God, although once recon- 
ciled, now become unreconciled, or stand in a different 
relation to man from that in which he stood when 
man first awoke to conscious being, without being 
charged with mutability or change. 

Another objection made by Unitarians to this doc- 
trine of reconciliation may be easily answered. When 
we speak of the necessity of Christ's atonement, in or- 
der to man's forgiveness, we are told, that we represent 
the Deity as implacable ; when we rebut that by show- 
ing that it was his very placability, his boundless and 
ineffable love to men, which sent his Son into the 
world to die for the sins of mankind, they rejoin, with 
their leaders, Socinus and Crellius, that then ' God was 
reconciled before he sent his Son, and that, therefore, 
Christ did not die to reconcile God to us.' The answer 
plainly is, that in this objection, they either mean that 
God had, from the placability and compassion of his 
nature, determined to be reconciled to offenders upon 
the sending his Son, or taat he was actually reconciled 
when our Lord was sent. The first is what we contend 
for, and is in no wise inconsistent with the submission 
of our Lord to death, since that was in pursuance of 
the merciful appointment and decree of the Father ; 
and the necessary medium by which this placabihty of 
God could honorably and consistently show itself in ac- 
tual reconciliation, or the pardon of sin. That God 
was not actually reconciled to man, that is, that he 
did not forgive our offences, independent of the 
death of Christ, is clear, for then sin would have 
been forgiven before it was committed, and remission 
of sins could not have been preached in the name of 
Christ, nor could a ministry of reconciliation have been 
committed to the Apostles. The reconciliation of God 
to man is, throughout, a conditional one, and, as in all 
conditional processes of this kind, it has three stages. 
The first is when the party offended is disposed to ad- 



244 



ATONEMENT. 



niit of terms of agreement, which, in God, is matter of 
pure grace and favor ; the second is when he declares 
his acceptance of the mediation of a third person, and 
that he is so satisfied with what he hath done in order 
to it, that he appoints it to be announced to the offen- 
der, that if the breach continues, the fault lies wholly 
upon himself; the third is when the offender accepts 
of the terms of agreement which are offered to him, 
submits, and is received into favor. ^Thus,' says 
Bishop Stillingfleet, ^upon the death and sufferings of 
Christ, God declares that he is so satisfied with what 
Christ hath done and suffered in order to the reconciha- 
tion between himself and us, that he now publishes 
remission of sins to the world, upon those terms which 
the Mediator hath declared by his own doctrine and 
the Apostles he sent to preach it. But because remis- 
sion of sins doth not immediately follow upon the death 
of Christ, without any supposition of any act on our 
part, therefore the state of favor doth commence from 
the performance of the conditions which are required 
of us.^ Whoever considers these obvious distinctions 
will have an ample answer to the above objection." — 
Ff^tson. 

V. The doctrine of a vicarious atonement is fully 
confirmed by those scriptures Vv^hich speak of Jesus 
Christ as a redeemer, and man as being redeemed by 
him. 

" Matt. XX. 28 and Mark x. 45. ' The son of man 
came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to 
give his life a ransom for many.' 

" 1 Tim. ii. 6. ' Who gave himself a ransom for 
all.' The English word ransom contained in the above 
quotations is thus defined by Dr. Webster. 

" ^ RANSOM, n. 1. The money or price paid for 
the redemption of a prisoner or slave, or for goods cap- 
tured by an enemy. 2. Release from captivity, bon- 
dage, or the possession of an enemy. 3. In law, a 
sum paid for the pardon of some great offence aiad tha 



ATONEMENT. 



245 



discharge of the offender ; or a fine paid in Heu of cor- 
poreal punishment. 4. In scripture^ the price paid for 
a forfeited hfe, or for dehvering or release from capital 
punishment. 5. The price paid for procuring the 
pardon of sins and the redemption of the sinner from 
punishment.' 

'^RANSOM, V, t, 1. To redeem from captivity 
or punishment by paying an equivalent. 2. To re- 
deem from the possession of an enemy by paying a 
price deemed equivalent. 3. In scripture ^ to redeem 
from the bondage of sin, and from the punishment to 
which sinners are subjected by the divine law. 4. To 
rescue, to deliver. 

" If then Christ ^ gave himself a ransom for many/ 
^ for all/ in the above sense, there is no room for far- 
ther controversy. The texts above quoted teach that 
Christ has ransomed sinners from the bondage of sin 
and the punishment to which they are subjected by the 
divine law, by paying his life a price for theirs. 

It may then be asked, if the word ransom is a pro- 
per translation of the original Greek. 

The word which the Evangelist employs, rendered 
ransom by our translators, is lutron, which is thus de- 
fined in the Greek and English Lexicons : Lutron, 
ransom, redemption, atonement, price of deliverance. 
The word which the apostle uses in the above text is 
antilutron, and is thus defined : ' Antilutron, (from anti, 
inturn, and lutron, a ransom,) the price of redemption, 
ransom.' 

" It is clear then that Christ has ransomed us by 
giving his life a ransom for ours. 

This view is farther supported by those scriptures, 
which express the same sentiment by the terms redeem, 
redemption, he, 

"Rom. iii. 24. ^ Being justified freely by his grace, 
through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.' 1. Cor. 
i. 30. ^ But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who, of 
God, is made unto us redemption,^ Gal. iv. 45. ' God 
21* 



246' ATomMmT,^ 

sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under tfie" 
law, to redeem them that were under the law.' Tit. ii, 
14. ' Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us 
from all iniquity.' Heb. ix. 15. ^ And for this cause he 
is th^ Mediator of the New Testament, that by means 
of death, for the redemption of the transgressors that 
were under the first testament, that they which are 
called might receive the promise of eternal inheri- 
tance.' 

It is clear, from these texts, that Christ has redeemed 
us, that he is the Redeemer and we the redeemed. 
We ask, then, what is it to redeem, or what is redemp- 
tion ? So far as the English word is concerned there 
can be hardly room for dispute. 

^^The word redeem Dr. Webster defines as follows: 
REDEEM, V. t. 1. To purchase back; to ran- 
som ; to liberate or rescue from captivity or bondage^ 
or from any obligation, or liability to suffer or to be for- 
feited, by paying an equivalent. 2. To repurchase 
what has been sold ; to regain possession of a thing al- 
ienated, by repaying the value of it,' &:c. With this 
corresponds his definition of the word redemption, 
which he defines thus : ^ REDEMPTION, tz., repur- 
chase of captured goods or persons ; the act of procur- 
ing the deliverance of persons or things from the pos- 
session of captors by the payment of an equivalent. 
*## theology, the ransom or deliverance of sinners 
from the bondage of sin and the penalties of God's 
violated law by the atonement of Christ.' Indeed, 
these terms are so well understood that it can hardly 
be necessary to produce authority to establish their 
meaning ; and yet, if Christ has redeemed us in this 
sense, the controversy is ended in plain English, and 
the doctrine of vicarious atonement is established. Now 
that it is in this sense that Christ has redeemed us, ap- 
pears from the following considerations : 

1. These English terms well express the sense of 
the original Greek. 



ATONEMENT. 



247 



^^In Romans iii. 24, in the expression, ^through the 
redemption that is in Christ Jesus,' the Apostle uses the 
word apolutroseos, which our translators have rendered 
redemption^ and which literally signifies deliverance 
from captivity. 

In Tit. ii. 14, in which it is said, Christ ^ gave him- 
self for us that he might redeem us,' the verb which is 
rendered redeem is, in the original, lutroseticL which is 
derived from lou, to pay, and signifies to ransom or to 
redeem, and the very derivation of the word shows that 
it signifies to redeem by paying a redemption price. 

In Gal. iv. 4, 5, where the Apostle says, Christ 
^was made under the law, to redeem them that were 
under the law,' the original word which is rendered re- 
deem is exagorcise. This word is compounded of ex^ 
from, and agorazo, to buy, and signifies to buy from or out 
of implying that Christ has redeemed, i. e., bought us 
from or out of the claims or power of the law, so as to 
deliver us from the penalty which it inflicts on trans- 
gressors, as the Apostle states, chapter iii. 13 : ^ Christ 
has redeemed us from the curse of the law.' 

2. The connection in which these terms are used 
is sufficient to convince the plain English reader, with- 
out any reference to the original, that redemption by 
price or purchase is intended. It is said that • Christ 
gave himself (or us that he might redeem us.' 1 Pet, 
i. 18, 19: ' Ye were not redeemed with corraptible 
things, as silver and gold, but with the precious blood 
of Christ.' These forms of expression clearly imply 
that a price was paid for our redemption, and that the 
sufferings and death of Jesus Christ constituted such 
price. 

" This view is farther supported by other expressions 
which represent us as being purchased, bought, &c. 
Acts XX. 28 : ^Feed the Church of God, which he 
hath purchased with his blood.' 1 Cor. vi. 20 : ^ Ye 
are bought with a price, therefDre glorify God in your 
body, and in your spirit, which are his/ 2 Pet. ii. 1 ; 



S48 ATONEMENT. 

^ There shall be false teachers among you, who privily 
shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord 
that bought them.' In the first of these texts the 
Church is said to be bought, and the blood of Christ is 
stated to have been the price paid. In the second of 
the above texts the Corinthians are said to be bought 
with a price, and what was that price more or less than 
the sufferings and death of Christ, ' who gave himself 
a ransom for all ?' In the third of the above quotations, 
some persons are said to deny the Lord that bought 
them ; therefore they must have been bought." — Lee, 

'^It has been attempted to evade the literal import of 
the important terms on which we have dwelt, by urging 
that such an interpretation would involve the absurdity 
of paying a price to Satan, the power said to hold men 
captive at his will. 

But why should the idea of redemption be confined 
to the purchasing of a captive ? The reason appears to 
be, that the objection may be invested with some plausi- 
bility. The fact, hovrever, is, that this is but one spe- 
cies and instance of redemption ; for the word, in its 
proper and general sense, means dehverance from evil of 
any kind, a price or valuable consideration intervening ; 
which valuable consideration may not always be a price, 
that is. not monev, but somethino; done, or something 
suffered, by Vvhich, in the case of commutation of pun- 
ishment, the lawo:iver is satisfied, thoudi no benefit oc- 
curs to him ; because in punishment respect is not had 
to the benefit of the lawgiver, but to the common good 
and order of things. So when Zaleucus, the Locrian 
lawgiver, had to pass sentence upon his son, for a crime 
which, by his own laws, condemned the aggressor to 
the loss of both his eyes, rather than relax his laws by 
sparing his son, he ordered him to be deprived of one of 
his eyes, and submitted to be deprived of one himself. 
Thus the eye of Zaleucus was the price of that of his 
son. 

But even if the redemption in Scripture related 



ATONEMENT. 



249 



wholly to captivity, it does not follow that the price 
must be paid to him who detains the captive. Our 
captivity to Satan is not parallel to the case of a captive 
taken in war, and in whom, by the laws of war, the 
captor has obtained a right, and demands an equivalent 
for liberation and the renunciation of that right. Our 
captivity to Satan is judicial. Man listens to tempta- 
tion, violates the laws of God, joins in a rebellion against 
his authority, and his being left under the power of 
Satan is a part of his punishment. The satisfaction is, 
therefore, to be made to the law under which this cap- 
tivity is made a part of the penalty ; not to him who 
detains the captive, and who is but a permitted instru- 
ment in the execution of the law, but to him whose law 
has been violated. He who pays the price of redemp- 
tion has to do with the judicial authority, and, his price 
being accepted, he proceeds to rescue the object of his 
compassion, and becomes the actual redeem^er. 

The price in the case of man is the blood of Christ ; 
and our redemption is not a commutation of a pecunia- 
ry price for a person, but a commutation of the suffer- 
ings of one person in the stead of another, which suf- 
ferings being a punishment, in order to satisfaction, is 
a valuable consideration, and, therefore, a price for the 
redemption of man out of the hands of Satan, and 
from all the consequences of that captivity. 

Under this head, now that we are showing that the 
death of Christ is exhibited in Scripture as the price of 
our redemption, it may also be necessary to meet an- 
other objection, that this doctrine of purchase and com- 
mutation is inconsistent with that freeness of the grace 
of God in the forgiveness of sins, on which so great a 
stress is laid in the Scriptures. This objection has becD 
urged from Socinus to Dr. Priestley, and has been thus 
stated by the latter : ' The Scriptures uniformly repre- 
sent God as our universal parent, pardoning sinners 
freely^ that is, from his natural goodness and mercy^ 
whenever they repent and reform their lives. All tha 



250 



ATONEMENT. 



declarations of Dldne mercy are made, without reserve 

ml ' 

and limitation, to the truly penitent, through all the 
books of Scripture, without the most distant hint of any 
regard being had to the sujfferings or merit of any be- 
ing whatever.'' The proofs which he gives of this bold, 
and, indeed, impudent position, are chiefly the declara- 
tion of the Apostle, that we are justified freely by the 
grace of God, and he contends that the word freely 
^implies that forgiveness is the free gift of God, and 
proceeds from his essential goodness and mercy, icith" 
out regard to any foreign consideration ichateverJ' It 
is singular, however, that the position, as Dr. Priestley 
has put it in the above quotations, refutes itself : for even 
he restricts the exercise of the mercy of God, • to the 
truly penitent,' ^ to them who repent and reform their 
lives.' Foro;iveness, therefore, is not. even accordino^ 
to him and his followers, free in the sense of uncondi- 
tional ; and at the very time he denies that pardon is 
bestowed by God, ^ without regard to any consideration 
whatever, foreign to his essential goodness and mercy,' 
he acknowledges that it is regulated, in its exercise, by 
the consideration of the penitence or non-penitence of 
tlie guilty, who are the subjects of it, from which the 
contradictory conclusion follows, that, in bestowing mer- 
cy, God has respect to a consideration foreign to Ms 
goodness and mercy, even the penitence of man, so that 
tliere is, in the mode of dispensing mercy, a reserve 
and limitation on the part of God. 

Thus, then, unless they would let in all kinds of 
license, by preaching an unconditional pardon, Uni- 
tarians are obliged to acknowledge that a thing may be 
done freely, which is, nevertheless, not done uncondi- 
tionally. 

But the very passage of St. Paul to which Dr. 
Priestly refers, when he contends that the doctrine of 
tlie IS'ew Testament is, * that forgiveness is the free gift 
of God, and proceeds from his essential goodness and 
mercy, without regard to any foreign consideration what- 



ATONEMENT. 



251 



ever/ refutes his inference. The passage is^ ^ being 
justified freely by his grace, through the redemption 
which is in Christ Jesus j' The same doctrine is taught 
in other passages ; and so far is it from being true, that 
no reference is made to any consideration beyond the 
mere goodness and mercy of God, that consideration is 
stated in so many express words, ' through the redemp- 
tion which is in Christ Jesus of which redemption 
the blood of Christ is the price, as taught in the texts 
above commented on. But though it was convenient, 
in order to render a bold assertion more plausible, to 
keep this out of sight, a little reflection might have 
shown that the argument built upon the word freely, 
the term used by the Apostle, proceeds upon an entire 
mistake. The expression has reference to ourselves and 
to our own exertions in the work of justification, not to 
any thing which has been done by another in our be- 
half ; and it is here used to denote the manner in which 
the blessing is bestowed, not the means by which it is 
procured. ' Being justified /ree/y by his grace ' — freely 
in the way of a gift unmerited by us, and not in the 
way of a reward for our worthiness or desert, agreeably 
to the assertion of the Apostle in another place, ^ not 
by the works of righteousness which we have done, but 
according to his mercy he saved us.' To be justified is 
to be pardoned and treated as righteous in the sight of 
God, and to be admitted thus into his favor and accept- 
ance. But man, in his fallen state, had nothing in him- 
self, and could do nothing of himself, by which he 
might merit or claim as his due so o-reat a benefit. Hav- 
ing, therefore, no pretensions to real righteousness, our 
absolution from the guilt of sin, and our admission to 
the character and privileges of righteous persons, must 
be imputed not to our merit, but to the grace of God ; it 
is an act of mercy which we must acknowledge and 
receive as a free gift, and not demand as a just reward. 
IsJNior do the means by which our justification was effect- 
ed in any respect alter its nature as a gift, or in the least 



252 



ATONEMENT. 



diminish its freedom, ' We are justified freely by his 
grace, through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ 
but this redemption was not procured by us, nor provi- 
ded at our expense. It was the result of the pure love 
of God, who, compassionating our misery, himself pro- 
vided the means of our deliverance, by sending his only 
beo;otten Son into the world, who voluntarilv submitted 
to die upon the cross, that he might become the propi- 
tiation for our sins, and reconcile us to God. Thus is 
the whole an entire act of mercy on the part of God 
and Christ ; begun and completed for our benefit, but 
without our intervention ; and, therefore, with respect to 
us, the pardon of sin must still be accounted a gift, 
though it comes to us through the redemption that is in 
Jesus Christ. — Watson, 

Another objection urged by our opponents against 
this doctrine of redemption or vicarious atonement, is, 
as we have already seen thus stated by the Rev. Mr. 
Grundy : This doctrine converts justice into ven- 
geance. It first plunges its sword into the soul of the 
innocent ; it aftervN'ards pursues multitudes of those 
whose punishment he bore, and relentlessly plunges 
them into the flames of hell." And in this objection 
Mr. Grundy is followed by those Unitarians who call 
themselves by the name of Christians, as will appear 
from the following exclamation once made in the pre- 
sence of the writer by one of their preachers, (the 
Rev. Harry Ashly.) What ! seize upon the innocent 
Jesus and compel him to suffer for guilty man, and 
then call it eternal justice !" The same objection vras, 
in substance, also made by the Rev. James Hayes, in 
the controversy before alluded to in this work. But in 
answer to this we would say, that so far was the Sa- 
viour from being seized and compelled to suffer, that he 
laid down his life voluntarily. John x. 11. I am 
the good shepherd : the good shepherd giveth his life 
for the sheep." John x. 17, 18. Therefore doth my 
father love me because I lay down my life for the sheep 



ATONEMENT. 



253 



that I may take it again." No man taketh it from me, 
but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it 
down and I have power to take it again." The Sa- 
viom^ then, instead of being seized and compelled to 
suffer and die in the place of fallen and guilty man, 
voluntarily laid down his life and became obedient to 
death, even the death of the cross ; and while he thus 
suffered and died of his own free will, it was also in ac- 
cordance with the will of the Father. Where, then, is 
the injustice in his thus giving himself a ransom for a 
guilty world ? 

2. If, as our opponents contend, Christ could not 
suffer in the place of sinners without suffering unjustly, 
God is unjust ; for it is expressly said that the Lord 
hath laid upon him the iniquities of us all. Again, 

he (God) hath made him to be sin for us who know no 
sin." And still farther, it is said, he (God) hath made 
him to be a curse for us," How can an innocent being 
have the iniquities of us all laid upon him in any other 
way than by having the punishment due to our sins 
laid upon him ? How could God make the Saviour, 
who, as the Scriptures say, knew no sin, to be sin for 
us only by inflicting upon him the punishment to which 
we were exposed in consequence of violating the laws 
of a just and holy God ? Or how could the Saviour be 
made a curse for us, unless it was by hanging upon the 
tree, and there bearing in our stead that curse under 
which man must have for ever groaned had the Saviour 
never died ? It would have been impossible : therefore, 
it remains evident that Christ did suffer a vicarious 
death ; and if this was unjust, then the Deity who ap- 
pointed him thus to bear the chastisement " or punish- 
ment due to our sins must be unjust. 

3. That Jesus Christ did suffer and die for man, in 
some sense cannot be denied even by Unitarians. 
" Now suppose the act was unjust, on the supposition 
that his death was vicarious, i. e., in the place of the 
sinner's death, we ask in what respect it would be less 

22 



254 



ATONEMENT. 



unjust on the supposition that it was not vicarious ? Is 
it unjust for Christ to die to redeem the world, by giving 
his hfe a ransom for the forfeited Hves of sinnerSj while 
it is just for him to die under circumstances in every 
respect similar, with the exception that his death is not 
a ransom for the lives of sinners ? If Christ suffered 
vicariously for sinners, his death contemplated a greater 
amount of good than it could have done had he died 
merely as a martyr for the truth ; hence, if our oppo- 
nents prefer the charge of injustice against the doctrine 
of Christ's vicarious death, they aggravate the circum- 
stance of injustice in proportion as they lessen the 
amount of good to be secured by it, by denying its 
atoning merits." — Lee, 

4. It is not, as Mr. Grundy says, this doctrine which 
plunges the sword into the soul of the innocent," but 
Jehovah himself who thus exclaims, in view of the 
death of Christ Awake, O sword, against my shep- 
herd, and against the man that is my fellow. Smite 
the shepherd." Zach. xiii. 7. Here the Lord (Je- 
hovah) is heard calling upon the sword to awake against 
his shepherd, and the man that is his fellow, who is 
Christ, for the purpose of smiting him. Is this unjust ? 
Let Unitarians answer. If they say that it is, then 
Deity himself must stand branded with injustice. But 
if, to avoid this conclusion, they v/ithdraw their charge, 
and grant that God was just when he called upon the 
sword to awake and smite the Saviour, and when it 
pleased the Lord to wound and bruise him for our 
transgressions, or lay upon him the iniquities of us all, 
then the above objection loses all its force, 

5. If the above objection is founded in truth, it will 
follow, not only that the Father who sent his Son to die 
for our sins is unjust, but the charge of injustice will 
lay w^th equal force against the Son, for he did die 
for our sins according to the Scriptures." He died, 
the just, for the unjust." He gave his life for the sheep, 
and if it is unjust for ^^the innocent Jesus" to suffer 



ATONEMENT. 



255 



for guilty man, then the Saviour, when he thus volun- 
tarily suffered and died, must have been guilty of an 
act of injustice. We therefore see that if Unitarianism 
be true, we have both an unjust God and an unjust Sa- 
viour. 

The same remarks will apply with equal force to the 
charge of injustice on the part of God, in punishing 
the sinner, although Christ has suffered the just for 
the unjust," for that he has thus suffered has been 
abundantly proved, and that those who refuse to accept 
of offered mercy vvill be punished is obvious, from the 
following testimony of Divine truth : The wicked 
shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget 
God.'' The wicked shall be driven away in his 
wickedness, the righteous only hath hope in his death. 
These (the wicked) shall go away into everlasting 
punishment, but the righteous into life eternal.'' De- 
part ye cursed into everlasting fire prepared for the 
devil and his angels." Their worm dieth not, and 
their fire is not quenched." The Lord Jesus shall be 
revealed from heaven in flaming fire, takmg vengeance 
on them that know not God, and w^ho obey not the 
gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, who shall be punished 
with everlasting destruction from the presence of the 
Lord and from the glory of his power." These pas- 
sages plainly prove that the finally wicked v/ill at 
last receive the punishment due to their sins, while 
others w^hich have been noticed prove with equal clear- 
ness that Christ did suffer in our stead : therefore, if 
this is an unjust course of proceeding, then God is an 
unjust being. 

But all difficulty on this subject, and every appear- 
ance of injustice, will disappear when we recollect that 
the blood of the Saviour is the blood of a covenant 
which dem.ands ^ repentance toward God, and faith to- 
ward our Lord Jesus Christ,' ' for the remission of 
sins,' — the ' faithfulness and justice ' which require the 
absolution of those who, with a proper reference to the 



256 



ATONEMENT. 



propitiatory sacrifice, ' confess their sins/ do not re^ 
quire the absolution of those who obstinately continue 
in their sin and unbehef. ^ God so loved the world, 
that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever be- 
lieveth in him might not perish, but have everlasting 
life/ John iii. 16. They, therefore, who obstinately 
refuse to believe in him, are j Lastly left to ' die in their 
iniquity.' ' If we sin wilfully (by rejecting reconcilia- 
tion) after that we have received the knowledge of the 
truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a 
fearful looking for of judgment, and fiery indignation 
which shall devour the adversaries.' The sinner, then, 
is justly charged, not only with the sins, the pardon of 
which he has obstinately refused, but with that of 
^ treading under foot the Son of God,' and of ' count- 
ing the blood of the covenant a common thing.' In 
other words, the end of public justice is not answered 
by the death of Christ, in those who live and die im- 
penitent, and therefore must be answered by the exer- 
cise of distributive justice." — Hare. 

It is also objected that if Jesus Christ suffered in our 
stead, for the purpose of saving us from the curse and 
penalty of the Divine Law, and if, as Trinitarians 
contend, the penalty of the Law is eternal death, then 
Christ must suffer eternally. 

In answer to this we would say, that it was not 
necessary for Christ to suffer the same length of time 
that the sinner would have been under the necessity of 
suffering if no atonement had ever been made, for his 
nature was such, being both God and man, that he was 
capable of suffering as much in a short period as the 
sinner will be throudi eternitv. Let no one. however, 
infer from this that we suppose the Divine nature itself 
suffered, for as Divinity is unchangeable it is impossible 
that it should suffer in the least degree as suffering if 
applied to Deity would imply a change. But notwith- 
standing the Divine nature of Christ could not in itself 
suffer, yet it could, and undoubtedly did support the 



ATONEMENT, 



S57 



humanity in its suffering for sinners. In the second 
place we would remark that it was not necessary that 
Jesus should suffer as much as the transgressor, in order 
to satisfy the claims of the Law, for his sufferings were 
of more value than any or every created being. Yea, 
the union of the Divine with the human nature, in the 
person of Jesus Christ, stamped his suffering with in- 
finite merit : of this we may assure ourselves by reason- 
ing from the less to the greater. A clod of the valley, 
for instance, is of no real worth or dignity ; it is not 
capable of suffering, and if it was, its sufferings could 
not possess any merit. But let that clod of the valley 
or heap of earth, that lays thus incapable of suffering, 
be connected with a spirit as it is in man, and it is not 
only rendered susceptible of pain and suffering but there 
is immediately a new dignity stamped upon it, so that 
its sufferino^s are of o-reat value in behalf of anv one. 
But if being connected with a finite created spirit in- 
creases the value of its suffering in such a ratio, what 
must be the value of those sufferings when connected 
with an infinite spirit as in the case of Jesus Christ ? 
Or, we may reason thus, if the sufferings of man are 
of more value than those of a brute, and those of an 
angel than those of a man, it will follow as we proceed 
in this gradation, ad infinitinn, and can find a being 
whose nature has no bounds his sufferings will be of in- 
finite value. Such was the nature of Jesus Christ, our 
-atoning high priest, for he was God manifest in the 
flesh, and as such his sufferino-s, though of short dura- 
tion, must have been of infinite worth ; consequently 
he could bear the curse of the divine law, and thereby 
make it possible for God to be just, and yet the justifier 
of him that believeth without suffering eternally, there- 
fore, the above objection looses all its force, and like 
many others which have been noticed, disappears before 
the blaze of gospel truth. 

But Unitarians contend that the dignity of the per- 
son adds nothing to the merit of his suffering. The 
22^ 



258 



Common opinion of mankind, in all ages, is, Iiowevef^; 
a sufficient refutation of this objection, for in proportion 
to the excellence of the creatures immolated in sacrifice 
have the value and efficacy of oblations been estimated 
by all people ; which notion when perverted, made 
them resort, in some instances, to human sacrifices, in 
cases of great extremity ; and surely, if the principle 
of substitution existed in the penal law of any human 
government, it would be universally felt to make a great 
difference in the character of the law^, whether an honor- 
able or a mean substitute were exacted in place of the 
guilty ; and that it would have greatly changed the 
character of the act of Zaleucus, the Locrian law- 
giver, and placed the estimation in which he held 
his own laws, and the degree of strictness with which 
he w^as determined to uphold them, in a very dif- 
ferent hght, if, instead of parting with one of his own 
eyes, in place of the remaining eye of his son, he had 
ordered the eye of some base slave or of a malefactor 
to be plucked out. But without entering into this, the 
notion will be explicitly refuted, if we turn to the testi- 
mony of Holy Writ itself, in which the dignity and 
Divinity of our Lord are so often emphatically referred 
to as stamping that vqIuc upon his sacrifice, as giving 
that consideration to his voluntary sufferings on our ac- 
count, which we usually express by the term of ^ his 
merits^'' Acts xx. 28, as God, he is said to have ' pur- 
chased the church with his own blood.' In Colos- 
sians i. 14, 15, we are said to have ' redemption through 

HIS BLOOD, who is THE IMAGE OF THE INVISIBLE GoD.* 

In 1 Cor. ii. 8, ' the Lord of Glory is said to have 
been crucified.' St. Peter emphatically calls the 
blood of Christ ' precious blood ;' and St. Paul dwells 
particularly upon this peculiarity, when he contrasts 
the sacrifice of Christ with those of the law, and when 
he ascribes that purifying efficacy, which he denies to 
the blood of bulls and of goats^ to the blood of Christ. 
* How MUCH MORE shall the bjlood of Christ, who 



ATONEMENT. 



259 



througil the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot 
to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve 
the hving God.' By the argument of our opponents 
there could be no difference between the blood of ani- 
mals, shed under the law, as to value and efficacy, and the 
blood of Christ, which is directly in the teeth of the 
declaration and argument of the Apostle, who also as- 
serts, that the ^patterns of things in the heavens were 
purified by animal sacrifices ; ' but the heavenly things 
themselves with better sacrifices than these,' name- 
ly, the oblation of Christ."— ?Faf50?!. 

We think we have now succeeded in showing that 
-the doctrine of a vicarious atonement is a doctrine 
clearly taught in the sacred Scriptures, and having 
answered the most prominent objections urged against 
it, we will now bring this subject to a close by remark- 
ing in the language of the Rev. 3Ir. Lee, that as 
christians we can never give up the atonement. ^Vhat ! 
renounce the atonement, which has already washed 
aw^ay the guilt of sin and given us peace v^ ith God 
through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ— renounce the 
efficacy of the blood of the cross, the cleansing power 
of which we have already felt in our souls by blessed 
experience — ^renounce the atonement, trusting in which 
holy [Martyrs shouted in the flames —renounce the atone- 
ment which has dispelled the horrors of death and shed 
the light of eternity on the night of the grave — re- 
nounce the atonement, while redeemed spirits which 
have already gained the blest shore, ascribe their salva- 
tion to the blood of the Lamb as they surround the 
throne with songs of deliverance, saying, • Unto him 
that loved us and hath washed us from our sins in his 
own blood, be glory and dominion forever and ever: 
thou art worthy for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed 
us to God by thy blood.' No, heaven forbid it ! Holy 
Ghost inspire us, and the atonement shall be our rally- 
ing point forever." 



260 OBJECTIONS TO tJNlTARlANISM. 



CHAPTER IX. 

OBJECTIONS TO UNlTARlANISM. 

1. If Unitarianism is true, tile Bible must be false ; 
for it expressly says that the Word (which is Christ) 
was God. Unitarianism says he is nothing but a crea- 
ture. The Bible says that Christ was from everlasting ; 
while Unitarianism says that he was not, but had a be- 
ginning. The Bible says that our Saviour knew all 
things ; but Unitarianism affirms that he was ignorant 
of many things. The Bible says of Christ that he is 
the Almighty, the mighty God; Unitarianism denies 
that he possesses this attribute, and contends that he is 
limited in all his energies. In the Bible, also, our Saviour 
promises always to be with his followers, and to meet 
with his children wherever they shall be assembled in 
his name, and, therefore, must be omnipresent ; Unita- 
rianism denies this, and, therefore, contradicts the Bible, 
and renders it impossible for the Saviour to fulfil his 
promises. The Bible says that Christ is over all, God 
blessed forever ; Unitarianism says that he is a created 
beinc, and therefore cannot be God over all. The Bi- 
ble says that all- things, both in heaven and in earth, 
were created by and for Jesus Christ; Unitarianism 
says that all things were created by and for the Father, 
to the exclusion of the Son. We therefore see, that 
with regard to the character of our Saviour, Unitarian- 
ism is at open war with the Scriptures ; and that if true, 
the Bible must be false. 

But it is not only with regard to the character of Christ 
that Unitarians stand opposed to the Bible, but in sev- 
eral other respects. The Bible views the knowledge 
of the Holy Ghost as unlimited ; for it says of him that 
he searches all things, yea, the deep things of God ; 



OBJECTIONS TO UNITARIANISM. 261 



while Unitarianism regards him as nothing but an attri- 
bute or emanation, and therefore strips him of all know- 
ledge, and makes him an unintelligent agent. See the 
answers given to several questions by the Rev. James 
Hayes, on page 37. Again, the Bible says, there are 
three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, 
and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one;" Unitarian- 
ism says, no, " at the most, there are but two, the Fath- 
er and the Son, for the Spirit has no personal existence ; 
and so far are these three from being one, that the 
Father is an eternal self-existent being ; while the Word, 
or Son, is a finite created being ; besides, it is impossi- 
ble that two should be one." Thus we see that Unita- 
rianism contradicts the Bible, and, consequently if one is 
true, the other must be false. Reader, which will you 
choose ? Will you adhere to the Scriptures of Divine, 
truth which are able to make you wise unto salvation ? 
or will you suspend your eternal all upon a theory 
which contradicts the Bible, and hmits the Saviour in 
all his attributes ? 

H. Unitarianism makes the Bible contradict itself, 
and thereby destroys its claim to Divine inspiration. 
This will appear from the fact, that in almost number- 
less instances, many of which have been mentioned in 
the preceding pages, and therefore need not be repeated 
here, it expressly declares that there is but one God, 
while in other places it says that Jesus Christ is God, 
and also that the Holy Ghost is God ; and that, too, 
under circumstances which forbid us to understand this 
name as applied to them in any inferior or accommoda- 
ted sense, as the reader will see by turning to the chap- 
ters on the Divinity of Christ and the Holy Ghost. 
These different passages of Scripture are directly oppo- 
sed to each other, and can only be reconciled by suppo- 
sing that these three persons. Father, Son, and Holy 
Ghost, exist together in the undivided Trinity, and 
together constitute the one God who is the Supreme 
object of religious worship. But Unitarians deny thisj 



262 OBJECTIONS TO UNITARIANISM. 



therefore they have no consistent method of reconciHng 
those passages of Scripture which say there is but one 
God with those which say that the Father, Son, and 
Holy Ghost are God ; therefore, upon their hypothesis, 
the Bible contradicts itself, and must be false. 

These, however, are not the only passages of Scrip- 
ture which contradict each other, if Unitarianism is true« 
It is said, thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and 
him only shalt thou serve and again, Worship God." 
But notwithstanding these passages are thus definite in 
making God the only object of worship, others, with 
equal plainness, bear testimony to the fact that Jesus 
Christ, who, according to Unitarianism, is nothing but a 
creature, is an object of worship. When he bringeth 
his first begotten into the Vv^orld he saith, and let all the 
angels of God worship him." Here the reader will 
readily see that one passage makes God the only object 
of worship, but the other makes Christ an object of 
worship ; consequently, if Christ is not God, which 
Unitarians deny, these must contradict each other; and 
if the Bible constradicts itself, it cannot be true. 

The Scriptures, also, upon the one hand inform us 
that Christ is dependant on the Father ; that the Fath- 
er " does nothing of himself that he does those works 
which the Father gave him to do that '' the Son 
knoweth not the hour of the last judgment that '' the 
Father is greater than he;" and that " the Son shall 
deliver up the kino-dom to the Father." On the other 
hand, they represent him as acting according to his own 
wdll ; acting with a sovereign authority; acting as ab- 
solutely independent, "Be it unto thee even as thou 
wilt- — I will, be thou clean — thy sins be forgiven thee." 
They also assure us that he is one with the Father, and 
equal with God ; that he " knoweth all things, and of 
his kingdom there shall be no end." Now if Unitarian- 
ism be true, which denies that Christ was both God and 
man, it will be utterly impossible to reconcile these dif- 
ferent passages of Sacred Writ ; for if Christ possesses 



OBSECTIONS TO UNITARIANISM. 



263 



but one nature, how can he be equal with his Father, 
and yet inferior to him ? 

With what consistency can our opponents maintain 
that Christ knows all thing's, and yet is ignorant of the 
time fixed for one of the greatest events that ever did, or 
ever will take place in the universe ? The distinction 
between nature and office is of no use here. For 
knowledge is a property of nature ; something, therefore, 
belonging to the nature of Jesus must be in question. 
Will they say, ^ When Peter declares that our Lord 
knows all things, that he does not speak in the general ?' 
But what is speaking in the general, if not making use 
of general expressions ? Besides, Peter, from a gener- 
al principle, draws a particular conclusion. ^Lord, 
thou knowest all things, thou knowest that I love thee.' 
As if he had said, Lord, I love thee, and thou must 
know that I love thee ; for thou art not ignorant of any 
thing. To suppose that the Apostle was under a mis- 
take, when he so expressed himself, has no shadow of 
reason. Because if he was, he uttered a blasphemy 
by attributing omniscience to Jesus Christ, which be- 
longs only to God ; and because his holy and humble 
Master would not have rewarded blasphemy by saying, 
^ Feed m.y sheep.' 

" How can they reconcile those passages which in- 
form us that Christ does nothing of himself; that he 
prayed at the grave of Lazarus ; and that the Father 
always hears him ; with others which represent him as 
working miracles by his own will and his own power ? 
If he be a mere creature, he depends upon God for his 
existence every moment, and was entirely beholden to 
the Great Sovereign for every exertion of power in the 
performance of his miraculous works. But if so, how 
came he to speak with such an air of Divine authority 
and of Divine power, ' I will, be thou clean ?' Had 
Moses or Paul, expressed himself after this manner, he 
would undoubtedly have been guilty of blasphemy. 



264 



OBJECTIONS TO UNITARIANISM. 



Nor can the distinction between ofHce and nature be of 
the least service on this occasion. 

Nor is their hypothesis any better calculated to 
reconcile what the Scripture asserts about the perpetui- 
ty of our Lord's kingdom, with what it says concerning 
his delivering of it up to the Father. For as, accord- 
ing to them, he does not reign by nature, but only in 
virtue of his offices ; it does not appear how his king- 
dom can be eternal. Nay, it necessarily follows that it 
must come to a period, if his offices do so. The seem- 
ing contradictions, therefore, between the different pas- 
sages, remain in all their force, as to any relief which 
can be afforded by their hypothesis. If, then, we be 
able perfectly to reconcile these apparently jarring texts, 
they must allow that our sentiments have a manifest and 
o;reat advanta^-e over theirs. 

Though the distinction of nature and office, which 
is fundamental in their hypothesis, be of no service 
here, yet ours of two distinct natures in the person of 
Christ, which is essential to the system embraced by us, 
is calculated to answer the important end. Nothing 
more easy, nothing more natural, than to reconcile one 
Scripture with another on the foundation of this dis- 
tinction. For example, Jesus Christ is man, and there- 
fore inferior to the Father ; he is God, and therefore 
equal with the Father. He is man, and therefore ig- 
norant of some things ; he is God, and therefore must 
be omniscient. He is man, and therefore must be de- 
pendent on the First Cause ; he prays and is heard. 
He is God ; to act, therefore, he need only to will ; for 
by wilhng he commands, and by commanding he exe- 
cutes. ' I will, be thou clean." He is man, and there- 
fore may receive a dominion, which is not natural to 
him ; may also receive it for a certain time, after which 
he shall deliver up his delegated kingdom and dominion 
to the Father. He is God, and therefore has an ever- 
lasting kingdom, a necessary dominion that shall never 
have an end«" — {Ahhadie.) But if Unitarianism be 



OBJECTIONS TO UNITARIANISM. 



265 



true, which denies this distinction of two natures in 
Christ, these apparent contradictions become real ones, 
and thereby the truth of the Sacred Scriptures are de- 
stroyed. So forcibly is the above difficulty felt by 
many Unitarians, that they have openly declared that 
the Bible is contradictory, and positively denied that 
it was given by Divine inspiration. Of this the reader 
will be satisfied when he reads the following extracts 
from the writings of the Rev, John Grundy : 

In the writings of the Evangelists there are incon- 
sistencies and occasional contradictions which, in my 
estimation, render it utterly impossible that they should 
have written under the influence of a Divine inspi- 
ration. 

The writers of the New Testament often make 
quotations from the Old Testament in a very incorrect 
manner. Is it not a grievous reflection upon the moral 
character of the Deity to represent him as dictating a 
quotation from a Prophet to different writers, and yet 
inspiring them to give that quotation inaccurately and 
variously ? 

They often speak with such uncertainty as to ren- 
der it incredible that the sentiment was at the time dic- 
tated by the Spirit of God. 

^' The reasonings with which the books composing 
the New Testament abound, evidently show that they 
v/ere not written under the influence of plenary inspi- 
ration." 

Dr. Priestley says, as before quoted, ^- 1 think I have 
showm that the Apostle Paul often reasons inconclusive- 
ly, and, therefore, that he wrote as any other person 
of his turn of mind or thinking, and in his situation, 
v/ould have written without any particular inspira- 
tion.'' 

We will now listen to Rev. Theodore Parker, who 
says, in his sermon, mentioned on a former page, *• Who 
shall assure us that they [the writers of the New Tes- 
tament] were not sometimes mistaken in historical; as 

23 ■ - . 



266 



OBJECTIONS 



TO 



UNITARIANISH. 



well as doctrinal matters, did not sometimes confound - - 
the actual with the imaginary, and that the fancy of 
these pious writers never stood in the place of their 
recollection ? 

It has been assumed, at the outset, it would seem, 
with no sufficient reason, without the smallest pretence 
on its writers' parts, that all of its authors were infalli- 
bly and miraculously inspired, so that they could com- 
mit no error of doctrine or fact. Men have been bid 
to close their eyes at the obvious difference between 
Luke and John ; the serious disagreement between Paul 
and Peter ; to believe on the smallest evidence, ac- 
counts which shock the moral sense and revolt th&> 
reason. 

Hence the attempt which always fails, to reconcile 
the philosophy of our times with the poems in Genesis, 
written a thousand years before Christ ; hence the at- 
tempt to conceal the contradiction in the record itself. 
Matters have come to such a pass, that even now, he is 
deemed an infidel, if not by implication an atheist^ 
Vvhose reverence for the Most High forbids him to be- 
lieve that God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son, 
a thought at which the flesh creeps with horror ; to 
believe it solely on the authority of an oriential story^ 
vv'ritten dov%'n nobody knovvs when, or by whom, or for 
what purpose ; which may be a poem, but cannot be 
the record of fact, unless God is the author of confu- 
sion and a lie. 

On the authority of the written word, man was 
taught to believe fiction for fact ; a dream for a miracu- 
lous revelation of God ; an oriental poem for a grave 
history of miraculous events ; a collection of amatory 
idyls [love songs] for a serious discourse ' touching the; ■ 
mutual love of Christ and the Church.' 

No doubt the time will come when its true charac- 
ter will be felt. Then it will be seen, that, amid all the 
contradictions of the Old Testament ; its legends so 
beautiful as fictionS; so appaling as facts ; amid its pre- 



OBJECTIONS TO UNITARIANISM. 



267 



dictions that have never been fulfilled ; amid the pue- 
rile conceptions of God which sometimes occur, and 
the cruel denunciations that disfigure both Psalm and 
Prophecy, there is a reverence for man's nature, a sub- 
lime trust in God, and a depth of piety rarely felt in 
these cold northern hearts of ours." 

Such is the lano;uao;e of Unitarian divines. We will 
now present the reader with an extract from the pen of 
Rosseau, a noted French infidel, and then leave him to 
judge which has the greatest claim to the nam^e of 
Christian, Rosseau, an avowed skeptic, or the gentle- 
men from whose writings the above extracts have been 
taken. 

^' I v>'ill confess to you that the majesty of the Scrip- 
tures strikes me with, admiration, as the purity of the 
gospel has its influence on my heart. Peruse the works 
of our philosophers, with all their pomp of diction : 
how mean, how contemptible they are compared with 
the Scriptures I Is it possible that a book, at once so 
simiple and sublime, should be merely the work of a man ? 
Is it possible that the sacred personage whose history it 
contains, should be a mere man ? Do we find that he 
assumed the tone of an enthusiast or the ambitious sec- 
tary ? V>liat sweetness, what purity in his manners ! 
What an affecting gracefulness in his delivery ! What 
sublimity in his maxims ! What presence of mind in 
his replies I How great the command over his pas- 
sions ! Where is the man, where the philosopher, who 
could so live and so die, without weakness and without 
ostentation ? When Plato described his imaginary good 
man with all the shame of milt, vet meritino; the hio:hest 
rewards of virtue, he described exactly the character of 
Jesus Christ : the resemblance was so striking that all 
the Christian Fathers perceived it. 

" What prepossession, what blindness must it be to 
compare the son of Sophronicus (Socrates) to the son 
of Mary ! What an infinite disproportion is there be- 
tween them ! Socrates dying without pain or ignominy. 



268 



OBJECTIONS TO UNITARIANISM. 



easily supported his character to the last: and if hk 
death, however easy, had not crowned his life, it might 
have been doubted whether Socrates, with all his wis- 
dom, was any thing more than a vain sophist. He in- 
vented, it is said, the theory of morals. Others, how- 
ever, had before put them in practice : he had only to 
say, therefore, what they had done, and to reduce their 
examples to precept. But where could Jesus learn 
among his competitors that pure and sublime morality, 
of which he only has given us both precept and exam- 
ple ? The death of Socrates, peaceably philosophizing 
with his friends, appears the most agreeable that could 
be wished for ; that of Jesus, expiring in the midst of 
agonizing pains, abused, insulted, and accused by a 
whole nation, is the most horrible that could be feared. 
Socrates, in receiving the cup of poison, blest the weep- 
ing executioner who gave it ; but Jesus, in the midst of 
excrutiating tortures, prayed for his merciless tormen- 
tors. Yes ! if the life and death of Socrates w^ere 
those of a sage, the life and death of Jesus were those 
of a God. Shall we suppose the evangelic history a 
mere fiction ? Indeed, my friend, it bears not the 
marks of fiction ; on the contrary, the history of Socra- 
tes, which nobody presumes to doubt, is not so well at- 
tested as that of Jesus Christ. Such a supposition, in 
fact, only shifts the difficulty, without obviating it ; it is 
more inconceivable, that a number of persons should 
agree to write such a history, than that one only should 
furnish the subject of it. The Jewish authors were 
incapable of the diction and strangers to the morality 
contained in the gospel, the marks of whose truth are so 
striking and inimitable, that the inventor would be a 
more astonishing man than the hero.'' 

The reader now has before him the lano;uao^e of Uni- 
tarianism and the language of infidelity ; and in view of 
the contrast, we think he will justify us in saying that 
the language of Unitarianism is not so becoming the 
Christiau religion as the language of Rosseau, an opea 



OBJECTIONS TO UNITARIANISM. 



269 



and avowed skeptic ; and, with the editor of the West- 
em Christian Advocate, That Unitarianism is not 
only diametrically opposed in its principles to Christian- 
ity, but that its very forces are arrayed against it. When 
we speak of Christianity we mean Christianity : we do 
not mean a few statements extracted by a conceited ra- 
tionalism from the word of God, and then compounded 
with metaphysical imagining and philosophical supposi- 
tions : we mean that vast and comprehensive system of 
divine things which was shadowed forth under the patri- 
archal and Mosaic dispensations of grace, and which 
burst forth in the fullness of splendor during the ministry 
of Christ and his Apostles. We receive as an eternal 
and unchangeable truth, direct from the throne of the 
Supreme himself, ^All Scripture is given by inspiration 
of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for 
correction, and for instruction in righteousness ; that 
the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished 
unto all good works.' We believe in the Bible — the 
whole Bible — and nothing but the Bible ; and we 
tremble for the future destiny of those who trifle with its 
solemn contents when we read its closing words : ' If 
any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto 
him the plagues that are written in this book ; and if 
any man shall take away from the words of the book 
of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of 
the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the 
things which are written in this book.' 

^^It seems strange, unprecedentedly strange, that 
after Hobbes, and Shaftsbury, and Hume, and Paine, 
and Volney, and Voltaire, and a host of others, should 
have expended the energies of their nature in opposing 
the Christian revelation, and all to no effect, its profess- 
ed friends should turn round and blaspheme its momen- 
tous truths — should proclaim, in the assumed capacity 
of ministers of the gospel, that it contains ' puerile con- 
ceptions of God,' and that ^ cruel denunciations disfigure 
both Psalm and Prophecy.' " 
23* 



970 OBJECTIONS TO UNITARIANISM. 



III. If Unitarianism be true, then the Mahometan 
rehgion is an essential reformation of Christianity. i 

" That there is an infinite distance between the 
Creator and the creatm^e, is a principle of natural reli- 
gion. God cannot, therefore, without the most hateful 
.impiety, be treated as a creature ; nor can a creature, 
without the grossest idolatry, be treated as a God. If, 
then, Jesus Christ be the Creator, he cannot be said, 
without impiety, to be a mere creature : and, if he be 
a mere creature, he cannot, without idolatiy, be ac- 
knowledged as God. Consequently, if we who con- 
sider him, as of one essence with the Father, and the 
eternal God, be under a mistake^ we cannot be cleared 
from a charge of idolatry, since it is as such that we 
worship him. 

We can not justify our conduct by saying, ^ we 
sincerely believe him to be God ; so that though there 
is an error in our judgment, yet there is no infidelity in 
our hearts, our worship being directed to God only^' 
For the same reason might serve to excuse all idolaters 
past, present, and future. The Heathens, who wor- 
shipped their Jupiter, really believed him to be God, 
and their acts of worship were intentionally referred to 
the Supreme Being ; yet they were not the less idola- 
trous on that account. v 

" Nor ought we to imagine that a creature, on ac- 
count of its superior excellence, may become the object 
of w^orship, which it would not be lawful to give to one 
of an inferior order. For they who worship the stars 
are as really idolaters as those that worship wood and 
stone ; and they who worship angels, as those that wor- 
ship the stars : because idolatry does not consist in 
rendering divine honors to a creature that is compara- 
tively low in the scale of dependant existence ; but in 
addressing them to a mere creature,^^ — (Ahhadie,) 
But, says one, we have no scruples in worshipping 
Christ, for God has commanded us to worship him.'' 
Very true ; but this must forever stand as an irrefraga- 



OBJECTIONS TO UNITARIANISM. 



271 



ble evidence in favor of his divdnity, or else the Bible is 
again made to contradict itself ; for it is expressly writ* 
ten, thou shalt have no other Gods before me.'' 

Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him. only. 
shalt thou serve," while at the same time angels and 
men are commanded to worship and serve Jesus Christ. 

If any man serve me. him will my Father honor." 
Now if Jesus Christ is not very God, then we are, in 
one place, conimanded to do what in another we are 
prohibited from doing on the penalty of death : for 
what is forbidden on more dreadful pains than idolatrv 
which treats the creature as the creator, 

^* Again : Idolatry is a crime which violates the law 
of God and destroys the spirit of piety : it is directly 
opposite to the two great ends of religion ; which are, 
the Glory of God, and the salvation of our souls. As 
to the former^ it evidently robs Jehovah of his glory, 
and invests a creature with it. As to the latter^ the 
spirit of infallibility has declared, that ' idolaters shall 
not inherit the kingdom of God.' 

Hence it follows, that the Christianity we profess 
is a corruption of the Christian religion ; and that Ma- 
hometanism is the re-establishment of it. For if 
Christian It V; in its primitive purity, represent and treat 
Jesus Christ as a mere creature, we corrupt and subvert 
it, when we consider and worship him as the true God* 
If, then, the religion of those who worship him as the 
Supreme Being, be a corruption of Christianity, the 
Mahometan religion, which represents God as infinitely 
superior to Jesus Christ, must be, in this respeet. the 
re-estabilshment of it." — (Abbadie.) In this light the 
subject has been viewed by Unitarians themselves, who 
have manifested a considerable degree of regard for the 
character and cause of ?>Iahomet, as will appear from 
the following address of theirs to x\meth Ben Ameth. 
Ambassador fi'oni the Emperor of Fez and Morocco, 
to Charles the Second, King of Great Britain i 



272 



OBJECTIONS TO UNITAIlIAJs^ISM. 



We. say they to his Excellency, as your nearest 
rELLOT\--cHAMPioNs for those truths : We, who. with our 
Unitarian brethren, were in all ages exercised to defend 
with our pens the faith of one Supreme God. (without 
personalities, or pluralities.) as He hath raised your Mat: 
hornet to do the same with the sword, as a scouro^e on 
those idolizing Christians ; — ^We do, for the vindica- 
lion of your Jaw-nialcer s glory, strive to prove, that 
such faults and irregularities, [as are found in the Ko- 
ran] not cohering with the fashion of the rest of the 
Alcoran building, nor with the undoubted sayings of 
your prophet, nor with the gospel of Christ (whereof 
Mahomet would have himself to be but a preacher) — 
were foisted into the scattered papers found after Ma- 
homet's death, of which in truth the Alcoran was made 
up : it being otherwise impossible that a man of that 
JUDGMENT, that hath proved itself in other thijigs so 
coNSPTcrorsLY. should be guilty of so many and fre- 
quent repugnancies, as are to be seen m those writings 
and laws that are now-a-days given out under his name. 
We do. then, endeavor to clear by whom, and in what 
time, such alterations were made in the first settiui;: out 
of the Alcoran.' See the whole Address in Leslie's 
Socinian Controversy Disc. Pref. p. 3 — 13. Thus 
careful were these gentlemen to purge the Koran of 
every thing suppositious ; and thus tender of its author's 
honor I 

Another Unitarian writer represents Mahomet, as 
having no other design but to restore the belief of the 
unity of God ; which, says he. at that time was extir- 
pated among the eastern Christians, by the doctrines of 
the Trinity and Incarnation, and informs us that Ma- 
homet meant not his rehgion should be esteemed a nexc 
religion : but only the resthution of the true intent of 
the Christian religion — that the 3Iahometan learned 
men call themselves the true disciples of the Messias, 
or Christ ; intimating thereby, that Christians are apos- 
tates from the most essential parts of the doctrine 



OBJECTIONS TO UNITARIANISM. 



273 



of the Messias — that jMahometanism has prevailed so 
greatly, not by force and the sword, but by that one 
truth in the Alcoran, the unity of God that is, as well 
in Person^ as in Essence, And then he represents the 
Tartars as acting more rationally, in embracing what he 
calls ''''the more pJaiisihle sect of Mahomet, than they 
would have done, in receiving the Christian faith of the 
Trinity, Incarnation, Sec." In Leslie, as above, p. 28. 

IV. Unitarianism makes Mahomet more true than 
Jesus Christ, at least, in those things which regard 
the fundamentals of religion and the glory of God^ 
This will appear, from the manner in which our Lord 
speaks of himself, and how, by the direction of his own 
Spirit, his apostles represent him in the Scripture testi- 
monies adduced in a preceding chapter, when com- 
pared with the following declarations of Mahomet, in 
which he plainly asserts, that they who say ' The Son 
of Mary is God, are infidels and avers, • that Christy 
the son of ]Marv, is no more than God's envov ' — that 
the ' Christians are infidels, by making three Gods, 
when there is but one and he calls those • infidels who 
set up Christ as equal to God.' " These declarations 
from the Koran are directly opposed to the language of 
the Bible : ^* In llie former, Jesus is described as bear- 
ing divine characters and possessing divine perfections, 
as performing divine works, and as being the true God ; 
but in the latter^ as a mere creature, and infinitely in- 
ferior to Jehovah. The lano-uacre of the Bible, there- 
fore, and the language of the Koran, cannot be both 
true, because they are contradictory. But that of 
the Koran, which expressly asserts that Christ is a mere 
creature, and ought not to be considered as the Su- 
preme Being, is not false, if he be indeed a mere crea- 
ture. The inference, then, is plain and unavoidable^ 
though shocking and horrid ; it is the language of the 
Bible, the language of Jesus Christ, that is void of 
truth.'^ 



274 OBJECTIONS TO UNITARIANISM. 



V. If Unitarianism be true, Mahomet was wiser than 
Jesus Christ ; for as wisdom consists in choosing the 
best means for obtaining a proposed end, we need only 
examine \\'hat was the end of each, in estabUshing his 
religion, and then enquire what method the one and the 
other took to succeed in their designs. Mahomet's de- 
sign was, as he declares, to make known the true God, 
as exalted far above all creatures — to make him known, 
as the only object of religious worship ; who ought to 
be distinguished from all other beings, even from Christ 
himself: maintaining, that Jesus is far from partaking 
with his Father in the glories of the Deity. Of these 
tilings Mahomet endeavors to persuade mankind ; and 
for this purpose he makes use of plain, and strong, and 
proper expressions. He loudly and vehemently de- 
clares, that they who treat Jesus Christ as God, are 
idolaters ; which is the direct way to accomplish his de- 
sign. It is supposed also, that the great end of Jesus 
Christ is to glorify God. To glorify God, is, according 
to the language of inspiration, to exalt him far above 
all other beings. The ancient prophets, foretelling that 
God should be glorified, in an extraordinary manner, in 
the latter times, express their ideas in the following 
words : ' The lofty looks of men shall be humbled, 
and the haughtiness of man shall be bowed down, and 
tlie Lord alone shall be exalted in that day.' But 
Christ debases God, at the very time he professes to 
exalt him ; for, by his expressions, he puts himself in 
the place of God. This he does, when he calls him- 
self God ; vs^ien he claims divine perfections ; when he 
attributes to himself the work of creation ; and when 
he applies to himself those oracles of the prophets 
which display the essential characters of the Supreme 
Being. 

" If it be said, ' It is sufficient that Christ declares, 
his Father is greater than he I answer, it would be a 
haughty kind of modesty for a mere creature to say, 
^ the Former of all things is greater than L' Neither 



OBJECTIONS TO UXITARIAXISM. 



275 



Moses nor Isaiah, nor any of the prophets, ever used 
such languuage. A loyal subject never afiects to say, 
the King is greater than 1. That is taken for granted. 
Nor will a holv creature make use of such lan^ua^e 
concerning his Creator : because it Vv ould be, in some 
sense, to compare himself with the infinite God. Be- 
sides, what v> Quid it avail for Jesus, once in the course 
of his converse on earth, to say, • iiy Father is greater 
than I when in the general tenor of his conduct and 
language, and in the language he taught his disciples, 
he speaks and acts as if he were the true God 

\' L If Unitarianism is true. J»Iahomet was more con- 
cerned for the good of mciv>J:iRd than Jesus Christ. 
This appears from the fact thea a prudent and dili- 
o^ent endeavor to preserve men from idolatrv is one of 

O J- 

the greatest marks of a sincere regard to their happi- 
ness ; because idolatry de-troys their souls, by exclud- 
ing them from the kingdoiiiof heaven. If, then. Jesus 
Christ be not a divine person, of the same essence with 
his Father, he has not taken proper measures to preserve 
men from the dreadful evil cf idolatry, while !}Jahomet 
has done it efiectually : for he has abolished the Chris- 
tian idolatry in a great part of the woi^ld, and laid such 
foundations of his ovrn religion, that a man cannot be 
guilty of idolatry, without first ceasing to be his disci- 
ple. But as for Christ, he has given occasion to it; 
he has laid a foundation for it. For he does not only 
permit and direct his disciples to dve him the titles of 
the Supreme Being, but also to a-cribe to him the per- 
fections and works of Deity, and to apply to him many 
of the sublimest oracles of the Old Testament, which 
relate to the God of Israel. 

It was, for instance, a very surprising thing that 
'Jesus, v>hen he appeared to Thomas, after his resurrec- 
tion, should sufier him to cry out, ' ]My Lord, and my 
God !' without saying a vrord to him about the impiety 
and blasphemy of an exclamation, which treats the 
creature as if he Vy-ere the Creator. Thomas, before, 



276 



OBJECTIONS TO UNITARIANISM. 



was an unbeliver, now he is an idolater. Till that in- 
stant, he would not believe that Jesus was risen : he 
considered him as a man lying under the power of 
death ; but now, on a sudden, he addresses him as God, 
he bows and adores. Of the two extremes, the latter 
is most condemnable : for unbelief is not so criminal as 
idolatry. That dishonoring Jesus Christ ; this usurping 
the throne of God. Better for Thomas, therefore, to 
have persisted in this unbelief, than, by renouncing it, 
to fall into idolatrv. And vet. strano;e indeed ! strange 
to astonishment! who can account for it ? Jesus up- 
braids him only with the former : not at all with the 
latter. Besides, as our Lord could not but know what 
an impression these words of his amazed and adoring 
Apostle would make on the minds of men ; as he knew 
that the Jews, deceived by expressions less exception- 
able than these, had accused him of blasphemy ; and 
as he knew that these very expressions would give oc- 
casion to Christians in succeeding ages, to treat him as 
the true God : it is evident that he ought, from a con- 
cern for the good of mankind, to have strictly prohibit- 
ed all expressions which tended to make such a danger- 
ous impression. And yet he not only permits his disci- 
ples to speak after this manner : but directs them to 
record the expressions, for the perusal of all future gen- 
erations ; and that without giving the least hint that the 
terms are used in a new and uncommon sense, though 
they appear so impious and blasphemous. 

VII. If Unitarianism is true, Mahomet was more 
zealous for the glory of God than Jesus Christ. The 
essential glory of God consists in the eminence of his 
perfections, by which he is infinitely exalted above all 
other beings ; and his manifestative glory, or the honor 
he receives from his rational creatures in the acts of re- 
ligion, by which he is distinguished from every creature. 
Now ^Mahomet has glorified God, by distinguishing him 
from all other beings : but it does not appear that he 
has been thus honored by Jesus Christ ; since his own 



OBJECTIOXS TO UXITARIANISM. 



277 



expressions and conduct, and the language of his Apos- 
tles, have a natural tendency to make us consider a 
mere creature as the Great Supreme. All expressions 
which attribute to a creature the characters of God's 
glory are sacrilegious. iN ay, though they might receive 
a sense which is not impious ; yet they are unlawful, if 
their ambiguity be such as renders them liable to be mis- 
anterpr^.ed, to the dishonor of God, by an impartial 
searcher after truth. For if, in civil commerce, equivo- 
cal language, which, without any force upon the ex- 
pressions, may be so understood as to injure a lawful 
sovereign, would be accounted criminal ; and if, when 
the dignity of majesty is deeply interested, we consider 
the silence of some and the equivocations of others, 
who ought to speak clearly for their master's honor, as 
so many implicit acts of treason ; have we not reason 
to condemn equivocations in the case before us, of im- 
piety and blasphemy, though there were notliino: else to 
induce us to do it ? But a man must be wilfully blind 
who does not see that there is something more than mere 
ambiguity in a language which is little short of a per- 
petual application of the characteristics of God's glory 
to Jesus Christ. 

Hence, I conclude, if Christ be a mere creature, 
that Mahomet has spoken conformably to truth and pru- 
dence ; to a concern for the good of mankind, and a 
zeal for th eglory of God. While Jesus — ^detested be the 
thought I — while Jesus has spoken imprudently and 
falsely ; while he has spoken cruelly, in regard to us ; 
and impiously, in respect to God." 

VIII. Unitarianism not only consecrates the Mahom- 
edan religion, but charges the Saviour with blasphemy 
against the God of heaven ; for it certainly must be 
blasphemy for any creature to claim to be equal with 
God — to claim the divine attributes, or suffer himself 
to be addressed by the names peculiar to God. But 
all this is done by Jesus Christ, as we have proved in a 
former chapter. Therefore, if Unitarianism be true, 
24 



S78 OBJECTIONS TO UNITARIANISM. 



which makes Christ nothing but a creature, he must be 
a blasphemer. Again, Jesus Christ claimed and re^ 
ceived rehgious worship, which in a still clearer manner 
fixes upon him the charge of blasphemy, if he is not 
God. 

A man, for instance, who should take the name of 
king, where a rightful sovereign is acknowledged, would 
certainly be very guilty. But his crime would be great- 
ly enhanced, if he dared to assume the titles appropri- 
-ated to signify the grandeur of his sovereign, and the 
extent of his dominions. But he would be still more 
guilty, if he caused himself to be treated as a king ; if 
he demanded the titles of majesty from those who ad- 
dressed him ; and required, as some kings do, to be 
served on the knee. In this case, either the allegiance 
due to the lawful sovereign must be renounced ; or this 
pretender must be called an usurper, and be punished 
as guilty of high treason." But our Saviour, in addi- 
tion to assuming the titles of Deity, suffers himself to 
be worshipped by his adoring followers ; therefore, if he 
is not truly and properly God, he must be guilty of 
blasphemy .-^ — Abbadie. 

IX. Unitarianism justifies the Jews in the most 
execrable parricide that was ever committed, that is, the 
murder of Jesus Christ. 

" In the law which God gave to the Jews, as may be 
seen in the thirteenth chapter of Deuteronomy, it is 
said, ^ If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer 
of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, and the 
sign or the wonder come to pass whereof he spake unto 
thee, saying, let us go after other Gods, which thou 
hast not known, and let us serve them, thou shalt not 
harken unto the voice of that prophet, or that dreamer 
of dreams; for the Lord your God proveth you, to 
know whether ye will love the Lord your God with all 
your heart and with all your soul. Ye shall walk after 
the Lord your God, and fear him, and keep his com- 
mandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him 



OBJECTIONS TO UNITARIANISM. 279 



and cleave unto him. And that prophet, or that dreamer 
of dreams shall be put to death.' 

Both Jews and Christians understood Christ to claim 
the worship of men. The former accused him of 
making himself equal with God, and the latter acknow- 
ledged him to be so. and he said nothing to oppose, but 
every thing to confirm these impressions. While at one 
time he would command them to love God with all 
their heart, at another he would interrogate them thus : 
^ Lovest thou ME.' He said emphatically, ^ Thou shalt 
love the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve:'* 
and then again, ^ If any man serve me, him shall my 
Father honor.' Though the law said, ' Ye shall walk 
after the Lord your God, and fear him, and keep his 
commandments, and obey his voice, and serve him, and 
cleave unto him ;' and that whosoever would turn men 
from so doing should be put to death ; yet he taught 
the people to love him, to hear his voice, to follow him, 
to obey his commandments, and to do every thing to 
him that this law prohibited from being done to any 
being but God. If he be not God, then, he did, in an 
eminent degree, teach the people to go after another 
God, and serve him, and the Jews could not avoid put- 
ting him to death in conformity to their law." — Luckey. 
X. Unitarianism destroys our hopes of heaven ; for, 

1. If Christ is not God, he must be a creature ; and 
if a creature, he was created by God, and consequently 
owes all his powers to God ; and should he serve him 
from the time he was created, down through the ages 
of eternity, he would do no more than his bounden 
duty ; therefore he could have no merit to apply to the 
case of any other, consequently could not make an 
atonement. 

2. It limits the Saviour in all his attributes,- and di- 
vests him of all his power to save. For if he is not 
infinite in wisdom he cannot know all our wants, there- 
fore he cannot supply them. Neither can he know, 
while dispensing our future destinies, what will be best 



280 OBJECTIONS TO UNITARIANISM. 



for us ; and that soul cheering promise, that " all things 
shall work together for good to them that love God/^ 
which has born us up under so many trials, and caused 
our hearts to rejoice in the midst of so many afflictions,, 
may forever fail. If he is not omnipresent he cannot 
always be with us to encourage, strengthen, and sup- 
port us ; and although he is touched with the feelings 
of our infirmities, and having been tempted in all points 
like as we are, he knows how to succour them that are 
tempted, yet, peradventure, while he leaves us to visit 
his followers in some distant clime, Satan may take the 
advantage of our weakness, overcome and destroy us 
forever. If Christ is not Almighty, then surely we 
have a slender arm on which to depend for salvation. 
Our subtle and powerful enemy, the Prince of the pow- 
er of the air, who goeth about like a roaring lion seek- 
ing whom he may devour, may overpower the Saviour, 
defeat him in all his plans, and finally drag us down to 
the chambers of eternal death, in spite of all that 
has been done to save us. Again, if Christ is not the 
infinite and immutable God, then he must be finite, and 
subject to change ; and if so, then he may change the 
entire plan of salvation, and give us no knowledge of 
Its terms, or he may change in his determination to save 
us at all, and finally leave us destitute of a Saviour 
altogether. 

3. Unitarianism destroys our hopes of heaven by 
denying the personality and divinity of the Holy Ghost, 
and reducing him to a mere effusion or an agent, without 
either personality or intelligence, which is, in fact, 
denying that there is any Holy Ghost. Consequent- 
ly, if Unitarianism be true, we have no heavenly 
messenger to reprove us of sin, of righteousness, and 
of a judgment to come,"— no Holy Ghost to inspire us 
with a burning zeal for the glory of God and the ad- 
vancement of the Redeemer's kingdom — to comfort 
our hearts, enlighten our understandings, change our na- 
tures, purify our souls, and render us meet for an inher- 



OBJECTIONS TO UNlTARIANISM. 



281 



itance among those that are sanctified. That promise of 
peace and joy in the Holy Ghost can never be verified ; 
the baptism of the Spirit is a mere deception ; and 
finally, if Unitarianism is true, the Bible is false and 
religion a dream. 

4. Unitarianism destroys all our hopes of heaven by 
denying the vicarious death and sufferings of our Lord 
and Saviour Jesus Christ. It first strips the Saviour of 
his Godhead, and consequently renders his suffering des- 
titute of merit, and then it boldly contradicts the word 
of God and affirms that Christ did not die to redeem us 
from the curse of a broken law. It, therefore, takes 
away the mercy seat, annihilates the blood besprinkled 
throne of grace before which the guilty, trembling, help- 
less sinner might approach and plead the merits of a 
crucified redeemer, and leaves us without a mediator, 
exposed to the wrath of a sin avenging God, that God 
who is angry with the wicked every day,'' and who 

is of purer eyes than to behold sin with the least de- 
gree of allowance, but with the greatest abhorence and 
detestation.'' It levels the whole gospel fabric with 
the ground, and removes the very corner stone of the 
Christians hope, w hich is placed in the meritorious death 
and suffering of Jesus Christ, and shuts him out from 
the last lingering ray of gospel light and dooms him for- 
ever to grope in that eternal night 

"Which has no morn beyond it, and no star" 

exposed to the keen ire of the Almighty's wrath, which 
is so fearfully pronounced against all those who violate 
his righteous laws. Unitarianism, therefore, by deny- 
ing faith in the blood of Jesus Christ renders it impos- 
sible for any to be saved, for " there is no other name 
given under heaven, or among men, whereby we can be 
saved," consequently, if Unitarianism is true, univei!sal 
damnation must inevitably follow. 

5. Unitarianism destroys our hopes of heaven by 
denying the authenticity of the sacred scriptures. It 

24=^ 



282 



OBJECTIONS TO UNITARIANISM. 



contradicts the Bible, makes the Bible contradict itself, 
and finally, as if grown bold through trifling with sacred 
things, it fearlessly denies the inspu'ation of that holy 
book. If, then, the Bible is contradictory and false, 
w^here is our hope ? We have no knowledge of God, 
his attributes, or his will : we know nothing of Jesus 
Christ, his nature, or his office : we know not whether 
^ there has been any plan devised for our redemption and 
salvation, or if there has, we are ignorant of its terms 
or the means by which we are to obtain its benefits. 
We are left like a mariner upon the trackless ocean 
without a chart or compass — no sun, nor even the faint 
glimmering of a star to guide us to the desired haven. 
And, indeed, we know not whether there is a heaven 
to gain or a hell to shun ; and if there is, we may foun- 
der in the one without knowing how to obtain the other. 
All is a dark and fearful uncertainty. We see by daily 
observation that we are mortal, and tending to the 
tomb, and that very soon we must all die, but whether 
we shall live again or not we cannot tell. Our souls 
may perish with our bodies, or they may live through 
all eternity in bliss or woe : this too is all uncertain. 
The promise of a resurrection, and of immortality and 
eternal life beyond the grave, is taken from us : for if 
Unitarianism is true, the Bible must be false, and these 
consoling promises must forever fail, while we are 
doomed to perpetual skepticism and doubt. Thus we 
see Unitarianism saps the very foundation of Christiani- 
ty, takes away all moral restraint, and opens the flood 
gates of infidelity, that moral scourge which has spread 
death and destruction over the face of the whole earth- 
It was a disbehef in the word and threatenings of God 
which induced Eve to partake of the forbidden fruit ; 
and it is that same unbelieving infidel principle that has 
ever been the fostering mother of all iniquity. Who, 
then, will dare to risk their eternal all on such a sys- 
tem as this ? Who that has ever read their Bible and 
been struck with awe and admiration while they have 



OBJECTIONS TO UNITARIANISM. 



283 



contemplated the sublimity of its style, the pureness of 
its morals, and the exalted nature of its doctrines ? Who 
that ever heard the thunderings of Sinai, and with 
trembling confessed that by the deeds of the law could 
no flesh be justified, and then in that book of books di- 
vine has read the story of the cross, the condescension 
of the Saviour, who was God over all, and yet for our 
sake became incarnate, became obedient unto death 
even the death of the cross, and who gave himself a 
ransom for us to redeem us from the curse of a viola- 
ted law, who arose for our justification, and ascended up 
on hio-h, and there sitteth at the rio;ht hand of God to 
make intercession for us ? Who, I say, in view of all 
this, can embrace a system which denies the Bible by 
denying all its fundamental doctrines ? Can we re- 
nounce the Bible, that richest of heaven's blessings, in 
which alone life and immortality are brought to light, 
and upon the truth of which hangs our eternal destinies ? 
We who live in the full blaze of gospel day, and in 
whose hearts the glorious sun of righteousness has 
shone with healing in its beams, and by its effulgent 
rays has scattered the gloomy clouds of moral darkness 
and despair and given us peace with God through our 
Lord Jesus Christ — can we renounce the Bible ? No — 
heaven forbid. Sooner, far sooner, let our right hand 
forget its cunning and our tongue cleave to the roof of 
our mouth ; yea, let our bodies be lashed to the burn- 
ing stake and perish in the flames, than that we should 
give up that holy Book, or deny one of its momentous 
truths. 



4 



ERRATA* 

t'AGE. L1N£. 

5 29 For Socinins, read Socinus. 
^ 6 25 For Parke, read Parker. 
125 1 For John Power, read John H. Power. 
15^ 18 For each of three persons, read each of these thre© 
persons, 

147 21 In a few copies, for defy, read deify* 



INDEX. 



CHAPTER 1. 



ox THE IMPROPRIETY OF MAKI>'G HUMA>' REASON THE 

TEST OF THE DOCTRI>'ES OF DIVOE REVELATIO>', 5 

Shown, 1. From the fact that human reason has been corrup- 
ted by sin, 9 

n. From the reflection which an appeal to reason instead 

of revelation would cast upon Deity, 10 

III. If reason were to be our guide, revelation would not be 
necessary, 10 

IV. Faith would not be the gift of God, 11 

V. From the opinions of ancient Philosophers, 12 

VI. From Scripture testimony, 13 

CHAPTER 11. 

IMP0RTA>'CE OF THE TRIXITY, 22" 

Shown, L From a knowledge of God being fundamental to 

religion, 23 

II. From its being necessary to explain tlie Scriptures, 23 

III. From our views of God, 24 

IV. From a denial of it changing our love to God, 25 

V. The doctrine of Atonement depends upon the doctrine of 

the Trinity, 27 

VL A denial of the doctrine of the Trinity changes the 

Christian experience, 28 

VII. Changes our love to Christ, 29 

VIII. Destroys all hope and trust in Christ as a Saviour, 29 

IX. From the manner in which a denial of it would affect 
the credit of the Scriptures, 31 



CHAPTER ni. 

PERSO>'ALITY AND DIVINITY OF THE HOLY GHOST, 34 



Personality. 

Proved^ 1. From the mode of his subsistence in the Trinity, 34 



2S6 



INDEX. 



PAGE. 

II. Fromtlie Scriptui'es being unintelligible if the Spiiit be 

not a person, 34 

III. From personification of any attribute of Deity being 
impossible in many passages where the Spirit is 
spoken of, 35 

IV. From the masculine pronouns applied to him, 36 
Y. Objections answered. 37 

Divimty. 

Proved, 1. From the act of creating, 40 
11. From being associated with tJie Father and the Son in 

the inspiration of the Prophets, 41 

in. From being the Lord of Hosts, 42 
rV. From tlie Tabernacle and Apostolic form of benediction, 42 

V. From the form of baptism, 43 
YI. From being tiie Most High. 44 
YII. From being the Spirit of God, 47 
YIII. From being God, 48 

CHAPTER lY. 

D1VI>-ITT OF CHRIST, 54 

Proved. 1. From his pre-existence, 55 

II. From beingf the Jehovah of tlie Old Testament, 59 

III. From his titles, 69 
lY. From liis acts, 83 
Y. From his etemit}\ 89 
YI. From his inmiutability, IQO 
YII. From his omnipresence, 104 
YIII. From his omniscience. 111 

IX. From his omnipotence, 120 

X. From his being an object of worship, 134 

CHAPTER Y. 

DOCTRI>'E OF THE TRIVITY, 154 

Proved, I. From the opinion of the Fathers, 155 

II. From its antiquity and universal spread, 163 

III. From the word Elohim, 164 
lY. From other plural expressions, 166 
Y. From the form of benediction used bv the Jewish Hish 

Priests, ' ^ 168 

YI. From the form of baptism, 171 

YII. From tlie doxoloor used by the Apostles, 174 

YIII. From tiie benediction used by the Apostles, 174 

IX. Objections answered, * 181 



INDEX. 



287 



PAGE. 

CHAPTER VI. 



ORIGI.VAL STATE OF 3IA>', 189 

Proved^ I. From man being the effect of a holy cause, 189 

XL From his being created in the image of God, 190 

III. From the seal of the Divine approbation, 191 

IV. From his being created upright, 192 

CHAPTER VIL 

FALL OF ^IAZn, 193 

Proved^ 1. From tlie iNlosaic history, 193 

ll. From Scriptural reference to the Zvlosaic history. 195 

Btpraviiy of all men in consequence of the Fall^ 

Proved, I. From the fall of the first nian^ 198 

II. From the fact that men have been generally wicked, 199 

III. From the salvation of infants by the death of Christ, 211 

IV. From the death and suffering of children, 211 

V. From Scripture testimony, "212 
VL Objections answered, 222 

CHAPTER VIIL 

AT0^'E3IE^'T, 225 

Proved, I. From those Scriptures which speak of Christ 

suffering and dying for us, 2<G 

II. From the death of Christ being penal, 233 

III. From the death of Christ being propitiatory, 234 

IV. From those Scriptures v\-hich speak of reconciliation as 
being effected by the death of Christ, 237 

V. From Christ being a redeemer, 244 

VI. Objections answered, 248 

CHAPTER IX. 

OBJECTIO>""S TO U:^ITA-PaA^"'IS3I, 260 

I. It contradicts the Bible, 260 

II. It makes the Bible contradict itself, 261 

III. Makes Mahome danism a reformation of Christianity, 270 

IV. Makes Mahomet more true than Jesus Christ, - 273 

V. Makes Mahomet vriser than Jesus Christ, 274^ 

VI. Makes Mahomet more concerned for the good of man- 
kind than Jesus Christ, 275 

VII. Makes Mahomet . mor zealous for tlie glory of God 
than Jesus Christ, 276 

VIIL Makes Jesus Christ a blasphemer, 277 

IX. Justifies the Jews in murdering the Saviour, 278 

X. Destroys the Cliristian's hope of heaven, 279 



3^ ^' . ^ 



^^^^ 

^ . * .cC^^. ..... 



^^^^ 



^ - - . V' .<V F^^^f'^.'^ed using the Bookkeeper process. H 

^ Z Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide i 

^ , V. ' ^ -S^"^^ '^eatment Date: May 2006 

, V . « / ^ . 0 s c , f feservationTechnologies 

- ^ ^ 111 ihomson Park nrivo 



' ! homson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



